Summary
The Delhi High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji Nagar, declared that a 1980s acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and directed compensation under that Act. Possession had been taken in 1987 and the land had long been used as a municipal park. Applying the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which overruled those decisions, the Court held there is no lapse once possession has been taken. The land remains vested and no compensation is payable under the 2013 Act. The landowners remain entitled to compensation under the 1894 Act award, or any enhancement sought in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed.
Issues
- Whether acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession had been taken in 1987 and the land was in use as a park.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Under Indore Development Authority, a deemed lapse requires that neither possession was taken nor compensation paid. Possession having been taken in 1987, there was no lapse. (¶¶ 3, 3.1, 3.2)
- Award under the Act, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The landowners were held entitled to compensation under the 1894 Act award, or to any enhancement sought in accordance with law, instead of compensation under the 2013 Act. (¶ 3.2)
Held
- Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji Nagar, on which the High Court relied, were overruled in Indore Development Authority. Under that decision, a deemed lapse under Section 24(2) arises only where the authorities neither took possession nor paid compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act. (¶¶ 3, 3.1)
- Since possession was taken in 1987 and the land was used as a park, the acquisition did not lapse. The land continues to vest in the State, and no compensation is payable under the 2013 Act. The original writ petitioners remain entitled to compensation under the 1894 Act award, or to an enhancement sought in accordance with law. (¶¶ 3.2, 3.3)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's judgment is set aside and the writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.