Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – Notification u/s 4 was issued on 23.06.1989 – Another notification u/s 6 was issued on 20.06.1990 – Award announced on 19.06.1992 – Respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming that neither possession was taken over nor compensation was paid thus the acquisition had lapsed u/s 24(2) – The appellant’s stand before the High Court was that the possession of the land was taken on 06.12.2012 but compensation could not be paid to the recorded land owners as they never claimed the same – High court relied on the case of Pune Municipal Corporation’s for interpretation of s.24(2) as per which possession as well as payment must be complete, within five years and since compensation has not been paid the acquisition in question has lapsed – On appeal, held: Pune Municipal Corporation case had been overruled by Indore Development Authority’s caseas per which compliance of either of the two conditions i.e. taking over of possession of the land or payment of compensation, is good enough to sustain the acquisition – In the case at hand, the possession of the land was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to Delhi Development Authority, hence, one of the conditions being satisfied thus there is no deemed lapse and the acquisition is sustained – Judgment of High Court unsustainable – Accordingly, set aside. Disposing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority’s case had opined that satisfaction of either of the conditions namely either taking possession of the acquired land or payment of compensation to the landowners would be sufficient to save the acquisition from being lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. [Para 11][377-F-G]
2. It is a fact to be noticed and taken care of that large chunk of land is acquired for planned development to take care of immediate need and also keep buffer for future requirements. Such portion of land may be lying vacant also. As has been observed in Indore Development Authority’s case by this court, the State agencies are not supposed to put police force to protect possession of the land taken after process of acquisition is complete. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the land even if lying vacant, is required now for a project of national importance. [Para 13][382-B-D]
3. It is the undisputed fact on the record, as has been noticed in the impugned order passed by the High Court, the possession of the land was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to Delhi Development Authority. Report of possession proceedings dated 06.12.2012 has also been placed on record. Hence, one of the conditions being satisfied, no need to examine any other argument. [Para 14][382-E]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed. Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal 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.