Summary
Possession of acquired land in Delhi was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector on 02.09.2006. The Delhi High Court nevertheless declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, solely because the landowner had not been paid compensation. The Supreme Court allowed the DDA's appeal, holding that this view runs directly contrary to the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. Under that decision, the word "or" between possession and compensation in Section 24(2) is read as "nor". A deemed lapse arises only where both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Once possession is taken, non-payment of compensation causes no lapse. The writ petition was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act solely because compensation was not paid, where possession had been taken in 2006.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Where possession has been taken, non-payment of compensation does not result in deemed lapse; both conditions must be unmet. (¶¶ 2, 3)
Held
- The High Court's declaration of lapse solely on non-payment of compensation, though possession had been taken on 02.09.2006, is contrary to Indore Development Authority, which reads 'or' in Section 24(2) as 'nor' and holds that once possession is taken there is no lapse. (¶¶ 2, 3)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Delhi High Court's judgment in W.P. (C) No. 10820 of 2016 declaring lapse set aside and the writ petition dismissed; no costs.