Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – Respondent was the daughter-in-law of the deceased – The deceased was alleged owner of the land with respect to which the land acquisition proceeding took place and the award was announced by the land acquisition collector – Respondent approached the High Court contending that the possession of the land have not be taken and the compensation not being paid hence the acquisition has lapsed – The High Court found that as a matter of fact, the possession was taken by the State but relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. held that since the compensation was not paid, therefore the acquisition in question has lapsed – On appeal, held: The judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another was overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority – The facts admitted on record it is evident that the possession of the land was taken after the acquisition of land was complete – However, compensation was not paid – There is nothing on record to suggest as to what action was taken by the person who claimed interest in the property to seek compensation, in case land owned by him was acquired more than two decades back and no compensation paid – The conditions laid down in the Indore Development Authority were not satisfied – Therefore, there cannot be lapsing of acquisition of land.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court shows that the Writ Petition was allowed relying upon the judgement of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another’s case. The case set by the writ petitioner was that late H was the recorded owner of the land as noticed in para 2 of the judgment. The writ petitioner is his daughter--in--law. Even the husband of the writ petitioner had expired when the writ petition was filed. It was claimed that late H was having bhoomidari rights, however in terms of the stand taken by the appellant, no surviving membership was placed on record. Definite and undisputed stand taken by the respondent before the High Court was that the possession of the land was taken after the award was announced and the same was handed over to the Forest Department for development as green belt, agriculture and water body as the land falls in ‘O’ Zone. [Para 13][637-E-F]
2. Initially, the stand sought to be taken by the writ petitioner before the High Court was that the physical possession of the land had not been taken, however, the same was given up. The only argument pressed was that the compensation be paid as per the provisions of the 2013 Act. The Writ Petition was allowed relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another’s case. The High Court had also noticed the fact that there was dispute about title of the property which as per the stand taken by both the parties was kept open. Meaning thereby, even the compensation could not have been paid to the predecessor interest of the respondent/ writ petitioner. There is nothing on record to suggest as to what action was taken by the person who claimed interest in the property to seek compensation, in case land owned by him was acquired more than two decades back and no compensation paid. The litigation started only with enactment of Act of 2013. The ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act as interpreted by this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others’s case are not satisfied in the case in hand. There cannot be lapsing of acquisition of land. [Paras 14, 15][637-G-H; 638-A-C]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & 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.