Summary
In four appeals concerning land acquired for the planned development of Delhi, the Delhi High Court had declared the acquisitions lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation, because compensation had not been paid to the landowners, although in each case the State's stand that possession had been taken and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority was recorded. The Supreme Court set the orders aside, holding that under the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, satisfaction of either condition, taking of possession or payment of compensation, saves the acquisition, and since possession had undisputedly been taken no other argument needed examination; the plea that the High Court orders should stand as they followed the law then prevailing was rejected.
Issues
- Whether acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 where possession was taken but compensation was not paid.
- Whether High Court orders declaring lapse on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation can be sustained after that decision was overruled.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013'Or' between possession and compensation is read as 'nor'; deemed lapse occurs only where neither possession was taken nor compensation paid for five years before the Act, so where possession was taken there is no lapse. (¶¶ 13, 17, 18, 19)
Held
- The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority held that satisfaction of either condition, taking of possession or payment of compensation, is sufficient to save an acquisition from lapsing under Section 24(2), and overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and all decisions following it; as it is undisputed on the record, and noticed in the High Court's own orders, that possession was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority, one condition stands satisfied and no other argument need be examined. (¶¶ 13, 17, 18, 19)
Result
Appeals allowed; orders of the Delhi High Court declaring the acquisitions lapsed under Section 24(2) set aside; the writ petitions filed by the respondents dismissed.