Summary
Land in Delhi was notified for acquisition in 1964, and the award was made in 1967. Possession was taken by panchnama in June 1967, and compensation was deposited with the Reference Court that November. After the 2013 Act came into force, a person relying on a general power of attorney and receipts obtained a High Court declaration of lapse under Section 24(2). The decision followed an earlier ruling that rested on Pune Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court set it aside on two grounds. Pune Municipal Corporation had been overruled in Indore Development Authority, and possession taken by panchnama is lawful possession that rules out lapse. Further, a subsequent purchaser who is not the recorded owner has no locus to seek a declaration of lapse.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition of 1964, in which possession was taken by panchnama in 1967 and compensation deposited, could be declared lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act at the instance of a person claiming through a general power of attorney who was not the recorded owner.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Applying Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, possession taken by drawing a panchnama is possession in accordance with law, and once possession is taken there is no lapse. (¶¶ 2.2, 3)
- Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The notification of 13.02.1964 was followed by an award on 12.05.1967, possession on 07.06.1967 and deposit of compensation with the Reference Court on 13.11.1967. (¶ 2)
Held
- The High Court followed its own decision in Harbans Kaur, which rested on Pune Municipal Corporation, overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority; since possession was taken in 1967 by panchnama, there could be no deemed lapse. (¶¶ 2.1, 2.2, 3)
- Following Shiv Kumar v. Union of India and later decisions, a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition or claim its lapse, so the High Court seriously erred in entertaining a writ petition by a person claiming through a general power of attorney and receipts who was not the recorded owner. (¶ 2.3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 360 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 02.05.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 7004 of 2015 declaring the acquisition to have lapsed quashed and set aside; no costs.