Summary
The Delhi High Court declared an acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the ground that possession could not be taken, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation, while leaving open the Government's objection that the land belonged to the Gram Sabha and the writ petitioner was not the recorded owner, a position his own counsel did not dispute. The Supreme Court allowed the Government of NCT of Delhi's appeal: a writ for a declaration of lapse should not have been entertained at the instance of a person who was admittedly neither the recorded owner nor a title holder, since even compensation is payable only to such persons, and in any event Pune Municipal Corporation stands overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
Issues
- Whether a person who admittedly is not the recorded owner of land belonging to the Gram Sabha can maintain a writ petition for a declaration that its acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Relief under the deemed-lapse provision, like compensation, arises only in favour of a recorded owner or person with title; the High Court's reliance on the overruled decision in Pune Municipal Corporation was also contrary to paragraphs 365 and 366 of Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 3)
Held
- The Government's specific case that the land belonged to the Gram Sabha was not disputed by the writ petitioner's counsel, yet the High Court kept the question of ownership open and granted relief; it ought not to have entertained the petition at the instance of a person who was not even the recorded owner. (¶¶ 2, 3)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Delhi High Court judgment dated 16.11.2017 in WP (C) No. 3158 of 2015 quashed and set aside.