Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Respondent no.1 filed the writ petition before the High Court for declaring that the acquisition of lands in question deemed to be lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that neither possession of the land taken over nor the compensation has been paid – High Court noted that compensation has been deposited with the court but the possession of the land in question is not taken over – High Court allowed the petition and declared the acquisition proceedings to be lapsed – On appeal, held: The issue was settled by the Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. which was not considered by High Court – The acquisition proceedings were under the subject matter of litigation due to which authorities were unable to take the possession of the lands – Such non taking of possession cannot be in favour of the landowners – Acquisition proceedings should not deemed to be lapsed – Judgment passed by High Court set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court has not appreciated the reasons why the authority could not take the possession. The acquisition proceedings were under challenge before the High Court as well as thereafter before this Court. The acquisition proceedings have attained finality pursuant to the judgment and order passed by this Court. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings were under challenge and the subject matter of litigation. Therefore, when the acquisition proceedings were the subject matter of litigation and because of that the authority could not take the possession of the lands in question and as such not taking over the SURESH B. KAPUR [M. R. SHAH, J.]
possession cannot be in favour of the landowners, more particularly, when the acquisition proceedings have been appealed upto this Court. [Paras 6.2]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – Followed. Balak Ram Glupta v. Union of India Writ Petition No. 1639 of 1985; Gyanender Singh v. Union of India & Ors. W.P. (C) No. 1393 of 2014; 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.