Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., in which it had relied on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. – High Court without entering into the question of possession, declared that the acquisition with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensation with respect to the land in question was not paid – Held: The case of Pune Municipal corporation which was relied on by High Court has already been overruled by subsequent Supreme Court decision in Indore Development authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. in which the Constitution Bench held that for the purpose of deemed lapse of land acquisition u/s.24(2) of 2013 Act, both the conditions namely the possession has not been taken and compensation not paid are required to be satisfied – In the intant case, as compensation was not paid due to inter se dispute between co- owners therefore respondents cannot make the claim of deemed lapse of acquisition – In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority, the impugned judgment of High Court unsustainable. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. From the judgment and order passed by the High Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it appears that the High Court has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183. The High Court in the said case, i.e., Jagjeet ANJEET SINGH (DEAD) THR.
Singh & Ors., without going into the controversy of physical possession had declared that the acquisition with respect to the said land is deemed to have lapsed as the compensation with respect to the land in question has not been tendered to the recorded owner. However, it cannot be disputed that the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. has been subsequently specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [Para 3.2][681-E-G]
2. It was the specific case on behalf of the authority that the possession of the land in question was already taken over on 22.09.1986. However, thereafter without entering into the question of possession, the High Court has declared that the acquisition with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensation with respect to the land in question was not paid. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority for the purpose of deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both the conditions namely the possession of land has not been taken over and the compensation not paid are required to be satisfied. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority, if one of the conditions are not satisfied, there cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. [Para 3.4][682-C-F]
3. It is required to be noted that in the present case, the compensation was not paid to the landowners in view of the fact that there was ownership dispute between the co-owners with respect to compensation. Therefore, if the compensation has not been paid due to inter se dispute between the co-owners, thereafter, it will not be open for the respondents – landowners to make a grievance that once the compensation was not paid, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed. In any case, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court was held to be unsustainable. [Para 3.5 and 3.6][685-A-B; 685-D-E]
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.
Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (Writ Petition (C) No. 960 of 2015 in the Delhi High Court) – 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.