Summary
A purchaser who acquired land after the acquisition notifications, award and rejection of the original owner’s challenge obtained a High Court declaration of lapse. The Court reversed that declaration, applying the same-day Godfrey Phillips judgment on a subsequent purchaser’s standing and Indore Development Authority on compensation and lapse. The purchaser’s writ petition was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether a purchaser acquiring after the award could seek lapse under section 24(2).
- Whether the High Court’s reasoning concerning deposit of compensation justified declaring the acquisition lapsed.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Applied the restrictions on a subsequent purchaser’s claim and the controlling interpretation of the compensation and possession conditions in Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 5, 8-10)
Held
- The respondent purchased after the section 4 and section 6 notifications and after the award. Applying the reasons in the same-day Godfrey Phillips decision, such a purchaser was not entitled to claim lapse under the 2013 Act. This independently defeated the writ petition. (¶¶ 2, 8, 10)
- The High Court’s compensation reasoning could not stand in light of Indore Development Authority. Tender to the landowner discharges the payment obligation; deposit in court is distinct from payment. Non-deposit does not itself cause lapse, and the applicable consequences may instead include interest or compensation under the statutory proviso. The Court did not equate every court deposit with payment to the owner. (¶ 9)
- Lapse requires the conjunctive failures to take possession and pay compensation for the requisite period, rather than either failure alone. The controlling interpretation does not permit a deposit default to reopen concluded proceedings. (¶¶ 5, 9)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court judgment set aside and the subsequent purchaser’s writ petition dismissed.