Summary
In about 95 appeals by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation and the State, the High Court had declared acquisitions lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act relying solely on Pune Municipal Corporation. In 80 cases the writ petitions, filed before the 2013 Act to challenge the acquisitions on other grounds, had been amended to add the lapse plea and were decided on that plea alone; in 15 cases only the lapse declaration was sought. The Supreme Court held the declarations unsustainable in view of Indore Development Authority, rejected the plea that possession was not taken merely because possession reports were not on record, set aside all the orders, remitted the first category for decision of the original challenges on merits within nine months, and held in the second category that there was no deemed lapse.
Issues
- Whether High Court declarations of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act based solely on Pune Municipal Corporation survive the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority.
- Whether, where writ petitions challenging acquisitions under the 1894 Act on other grounds were disposed of only on the lapse plea, the matters should be remitted for decision of those grounds on merits.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Deemed lapse arises only where neither possession was taken nor compensation paid; where the acquiring body's specific stand is that possession was taken, non-production of a possession report does not establish that possession was not taken. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8)
- Challenges to acquisition proceedings, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The original grounds of challenge, including the effect of possession having been taken and compensation paid or deposited, were left open for the High Court to decide on remand. (¶¶ 3, 6, 7)
Held
- Declarations of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) made solely on the strength of Pune Municipal Corporation cannot stand after Indore Development Authority; the submission by some landowners that possession was not actually taken because the possession report was not placed on record cannot be accepted against the acquiring body's specific stand and the law laid down by the Constitution Bench. (¶¶ 5, 8)
- Where the writ petitions, filed before the 2013 Act, challenged the acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act on various grounds and the High Court disposed of them only on the lapse plea, the orders are set aside and the petitions remitted for fresh decision on the other grounds, with all contentions, including the State's plea that possession has been taken and compensation paid so the acquisition need not be quashed, kept open except the applicability of Section 24(2). (¶¶ 6, 7)
Result
Appeals disposed of; in the 80 appeals arising from CWP No. 4015 of 2006 and allied petitions the High Court's lapse declarations quashed and the writ petitions remitted to the High Court to be decided afresh on merits on issues other than Section 24(2), preferably within nine months; in the 15 appeals where only lapse was sought the declarations quashed and it is held there is no deemed lapse.