Summary
The Delhi High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation, declared that an acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act solely because compensation had not been paid to the writ petitioner. Yet the writ petition itself admitted that possession was taken on 27.09.2012 under the award, and the compensation had been deposited in the treasury. The Authority also said the petitioner was not the recorded owner and that the land vested in the Gaon Sabha. The Supreme Court set the declaration aside and dismissed the writ petition. Pune Municipal Corporation had been overruled in Indore Development Authority, under which taking possession precludes lapse.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for non-payment of compensation to the writ petitioner where possession was admittedly taken and compensation was deposited in the treasury.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Under Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, there is no lapse once possession has been taken, and the mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury cannot be used to invalidate the acquisition. (¶¶ 3.3, 4)
Held
- The High Court declared lapse solely for non-payment of compensation relying on the overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, despite the writ petitioner's own averment and annexed possession proceedings showing possession taken on 27.09.2012 and the compensation being deposited in the treasury; the declaration is unsustainable under Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 337 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 13.12.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 11476 of 2016 quashed and set aside and the writ petition dismissed; no costs.