Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by the Government of NCT of Delhi against a High Court judgment that had allowed a writ petition declaring land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court had relied on the Pune Municipal Corporation decision, finding that possession of the subject land could not be taken. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the land belonged to Gram Sabha, and thus the original writ petitioner lacked locus standi to seek declaration of lapse. The respondent's counsel did not dispute this ownership claim. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had entertained the writ petition without deciding the ownership question, keeping it open, despite the petitioner's admission regarding Gram Sabha ownership. The Court emphasized that only recorded owners or persons with title could challenge acquisition or claim compensation. Furthermore, the Court observed that the Pune Municipal Corporation decision, relied upon by the High Court, had been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The Constitution Bench had held that for deemed lapse under Section 24(2), both possession must not have been taken AND compensation must not have been paid, interpreting 'or' as 'nor' or 'and'. Applying this law and considering the locus standi issue, the Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment unsustainable. It quashed and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with no costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Locus Standi - Right to Challenge Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Writ petition challenging land acquisition can only be entertained at the instance of recorded owner or person with title - High Court erred in entertaining petition when petitioner admitted land belonged to Gram Sabha and was not recorded owner - Held that question of compensation arises only in favour of recorded owner/title holder (Paras 1-2.1). B) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse - Section 24(2) Interpretation - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24(2) - Deemed lapse under Section 24(2) requires both non-taking of possession AND non-payment of compensation - Word 'or' in Section 24(2) must be read as 'nor' or 'and' following Constitution Bench ruling - Pune Municipal Corporation decision overruled by Indore Development Authority - Held that High Court's reliance on overruled precedent was erroneous (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in entertaining a writ petition and declaring land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when the petitioner lacked locus standi as the land belonged to Gram Sabha and the relied-upon precedent had been overruled
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the impugned High Court judgment and order, with no costs
Law Points
- Locus standi requires person to be recorded owner or have title to challenge land acquisition
- deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013 requires both non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation
- Pune Municipal Corporation decision overruled by Indore Development Authority Constitution Bench
