Summary
Land in Delhi was acquired in 1964. The award was made in 1967, possession was taken that year by panchnama, and compensation was deposited with the Reference Court. In 2017 the writ petitioners obtained a High Court declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The High Court followed Harbans Kaur, which rested on Pune Municipal Corporation and treated deposit in court as non-payment. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside. Pune Municipal Corporation had been overruled in Indore Development Authority, possession by panchnama is a permissible mode, and nothing showed any grievance about non-payment between 1967 and 2017.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition of 1964, in which possession was taken by panchnama in 1967 and compensation deposited with the Reference Court, lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Applying Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, possession taken by drawing a panchnama is a permissible mode and rules out lapse; the decision overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, on which Harbans Kaur rested. (¶¶ 4, 4.1, 5)
Held
- Since possession was taken in 1967 by panchnama, a permissible mode, and compensation was deposited with the Reference Court that year, and since the High Court's reliance on Harbans Kaur and Pune Municipal Corporation was misplaced after Indore Development Authority, the declaration of lapse is unsustainable. (¶¶ 4, 4.1, 5)
- Nothing on record showed that between 1967 and 2017 the writ petitioners or the original landowners raised any grievance about non-payment of compensation. (¶ 5)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 363 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 05.09.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 6478 of 2017 quashed and set aside; no costs.