Summary
The Delhi High Court, while itself recording that physical possession of the land was admittedly taken on 16 July 2007, declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been paid to the petitioner, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court allowed the Delhi Development Authority's appeal: Pune Municipal Corporation stands overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which holds that once possession has been taken there is no deemed lapse even if compensation remains unpaid; the declaration was unsustainable and the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition can be declared lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for non-payment of compensation where physical possession was admittedly taken in 2007.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Under paragraphs 365 and 366 of Indore Development Authority, lapse requires both that possession was not taken and that compensation was not paid for five years before 01.01.2014; possession having been taken, the land vested and there was no lapse. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 3)
Held
- The High Court's own finding that possession was taken on 16.07.2007 was decisive; its declaration of lapse founded on the overruled decision in Pune Municipal Corporation cannot stand. (¶¶ 2, 2.1, 3, 3.1)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; Delhi High Court judgment dated 24.01.2017 in WP (C) No. 3164 of 2015 quashed and set aside and the writ petition dismissed.