Summary
The Delhi High Court declared that an acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the ground that no physical possession had been taken. The Land Acquisition Collector's affidavit stated that the DDA had taken possession on 21.03.2007 by drawing a panchnama and preparing a possession report. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was contrary to the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority. That ruling recognises possession taken by a panchnama or memorandum, and holds that once possession is taken there is no lapse. The High Court's declaration was quashed.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession was taken by drawing a panchnama and possession report but physical possession was allegedly not taken.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Under Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, possession is taken by drawing an inquest report or memorandum, and once possession is taken there is no lapse. (¶¶ 4, 5)
Held
- Possession of Khasra No. 28 having been taken by the DDA through the Land Acquisition Collector on 21.03.2007 by drawing a panchnama and possession report, which is a permissible mode, the High Court's declaration of lapse for want of physical possession is contrary to Indore Development Authority and unsustainable. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 366 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 25.07.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 8291 of 2015 quashed and set aside; no costs.