Summary
Land in Delhi was notified in 1996, and the award was passed in 1999. According to the Land Acquisition Collector, possession of the writ petitioner's quarter share in Khasra No. 759 was taken on 31.12.2013 by possession proceedings on the spot and handed to the requisitioning agency. The Delhi High Court nonetheless declared that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been paid or tendered, without addressing the taking of possession. The Supreme Court quashed the declaration. Applying Indore Development Authority, it held that there is no lapse where possession has been taken, even if compensation remains unpaid.
Issues
- Whether an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the ground that compensation was not paid where possession had been taken by drawing a panchnama before the Act came into force.
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, lapse requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation; if possession has been taken there is no lapse even if compensation is unpaid. (¶¶ 3, 4)
Held
- The High Court declared lapse solely for non-payment of compensation, without considering the taking of possession and handing over to the beneficiary by panchnama on 31.12.2013; that view is unsustainable in the light of Indore Development Authority. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 342 of 2023 allowed; the Delhi High Court judgment dated 14.03.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 5053 of 2016 quashed and set aside; no costs.