Summary
The Delhi High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation to declare that an acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, because compensation had not been tendered under Section 31 of the 1894 Act. The Land Acquisition Collector and the DDA had pleaded that possession was taken in 2007 by panchnama and possession report and handed to the beneficiary department. The Supreme Court quashed the declaration. Pune Municipal Corporation was overruled in Indore Development Authority, under which an acquisition does not lapse once possession has been taken, whatever the position on compensation.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for non-tender of compensation under Section 31 of the 1894 Act where possession had been taken by panchnama in 2007.
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, possession taken by drawing a panchnama or possession report rules out deemed lapse, even where compensation was not tendered. (¶¶ 2, 3)
- Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Non-tender of compensation was the sole ground for the High Court's declaration, which cannot stand once possession was taken. (¶ 2)
Held
- The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation, overruled in Indore Development Authority; as possession was taken in 2007 by panchnama and handed over to the beneficiary department, the declaration of lapse is unsustainable. (¶¶ 2, 3)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 362 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 20.12.2017 in W.P. (C) No. 5441 of 2017 quashed and set aside; no costs.