Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that the entire acquisition with respect to the suit land is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – It was the specific case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) that the physical possession of the lands in question was duly taken over by the Government except the 3 biswa land comprised in Khasra No. 17/1/1 which was not taken due to builtup – Held: – Original writ petitioners disputed the actual taking over of possession and submitted that the possession was taken over by drawing proceedings – As held by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as [2020] 3 SCR 1, taking over the physical possession by drawing the punchnama/possession proceedings can be said to be sufficient compliance – Thus, applying the law laid down therein and considering the fact that except the aforesaid 3 biswa land, the possession of the other lands in question was taken over by the Government, there shall be no deemed lapse with respect to the entire acquisition of the lands in question u/s.24(2) – Impugned judgment set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
1 SCR 783 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.