Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) – Land acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the acquisition proceedings and also for a declaration that the acquisition with respect to the land is deemed to have been lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – According to the Land Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit before the High Court, the possession of the disputed land in question along with the other lands were taken over and handed over to DDA on 04.03.1983 – High Court, on the ground, that the compensation was not tendered to the land owner, allowed writ petition and declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Hence instant appeal – Held: As per the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others for the purpose of lapse under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking over possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are required to be satisfied and that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – According to the possession certificate and the specific case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. As per the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others for the purpose of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions of not taking over possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are required to be satisfied. As per the decision in the case of Indore Development Authority if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the case of Indore Development Authority, the Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically overuled the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order. [Para 3.1][805-C-E]
2. According to the possession certificate and the specific case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. [Para 4][807-H; 808A]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. 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.