Summary
The Delhi High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, declared that the acquisition of the respondents' land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for non-payment of compensation, although the Land Acquisition Collector's case was that physical possession had been taken and handed over to the beneficiary department on 14.07.1987. The Supreme Court set the judgment aside, holding that Pune Municipal Corporation stands overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, under which there is no deemed lapse where possession has been taken even if compensation has not been paid.
Issues
- Whether acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 where possession of the land was taken but compensation was not paid.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Applying the Constitution Bench ruling that 'or' between possession and compensation is to be read as 'nor' or 'and', the Court held that since possession was taken on 14.07.1987 there could be no deemed lapse of the acquisition. (¶¶ 2.1, 3)
Held
- The High Court's declaration of deemed lapse, founded on Pune Municipal Corporation, is unsustainable because that decision has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal; where physical possession of the land was taken on 14.07.1987, there is no deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) merely because compensation had not been paid. (¶¶ 2.1, 3, 4)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment in W.P.(C) No. 3435 of 2016 quashed and set aside; it is held that there is no deemed lapse of acquisition in respect of the land in question. No costs; pending applications disposed of.