Summary
The Delhi High Court, following Pune Municipal Corporation, declared that an acquisition for the planned development of Delhi had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been paid, though the State's stand was that possession was taken on 6 December 2012 and handed to the Delhi Development Authority. The Supreme Court set the order aside: under the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority taking of possession alone saves the acquisition; once an award is passed and possession taken by drawing a memorandum the land vests in the State and anyone retaining or re-entering it is a trespasser, the State not being required to guard vacant acquired land; and the land was now needed for a national highway. The landowners remain entitled to compensation.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 where possession was taken by the Collector but compensation was not paid.
- What constitutes taking of possession of acquired land for the purposes of Section 24(2).
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Deemed lapse requires that neither possession was taken nor compensation paid; possession having been taken on 6 December 2012 as recorded in the possession proceedings, the acquisition did not lapse. (¶¶ 11, 14, 15)
- Sections 16 and 17, Land Acquisition Act, 1894On passing of the award and taking possession the land vests absolutely in the State free of encumbrances; taking possession by drawing a memorandum amounts to taking physical possession, and any subsequent retention or re-entry by the erstwhile owner is trespass enuring to the State's benefit. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Held
- Satisfaction of either condition, taking of possession or payment of compensation, saves an acquisition from lapse under Section 24(2), as held by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation; as possession was undisputedly taken by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority, no other argument need be examined. (¶¶ 11, 14, 15)
- Once possession is taken under the 1894 Act by drawing an inquest or memorandum, vesting is with possession; the State is not expected to post police or start cultivating or residing on large tracts acquired for planned development, which may lie vacant as a buffer for future needs, and any person retaining or re-entering such land is a trespasser whose possession enures for the State. The land here is now required for the Delhi-Saharanpur-Dehradun highway under the Bharatmala project. (¶¶ 8, 12, 13)
- The respondents remain entitled to compensation as per their entitlement, and the Land Acquisition Officer should take steps to pay it to the rightful owner. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal disposed of; High Court order dated 20.12.2017 declaring the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) set aside; respondents held entitled to receive compensation as per their entitlement, with the Land Acquisition Officer to take steps to pay it to the rightful owner.