Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed an appeal challenging the Delhi High Court's order that declared land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The acquisition was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 through notifications dated 23.06.1989 (Section 4) and 20.06.1990 (Section 6), with an award announced on 19.06.1992 for land in village Ghonda, Chauhan Khadar, New Delhi for planned development. The respondents (landowners) filed a writ petition claiming lapse as neither possession was taken nor compensation paid. The appellants contended possession was taken on 06.12.2012 and compensation was tendered but not claimed by landowners. The High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Misirimal Solanki, held the acquisition lapsed due to non-payment. The appellants argued the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, making the High Court's order erroneous. The Supreme Court analyzed Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which provides that where possession has not been taken nor compensation paid for acquisitions initiated under the 1894 Act but not completed before the 2013 Act's commencement, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. The Court emphasized that compensation must be paid, not merely tendered, to prevent lapse. It found that compensation was not paid to the landowners, despite being tendered, fulfilling the condition for lapse. The Court set aside the High Court's order, declaring the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2).
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition Law - Lapse of Acquisition - Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Acquisition proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The Supreme Court considered whether acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation. The Court held that mere tender of compensation is insufficient; actual payment to landowners or deposit in court is required to prevent lapse. Since compensation was not paid to the landowners despite being tendered, the acquisition was deemed to have lapsed. (Paras 1-8) B) Land Acquisition Law - Compensation Payment - Distinction Between Tender and Payment - Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The Court clarified the legal distinction between tender of compensation and actual payment under Section 24(2). It emphasized that the statutory requirement is payment, not mere tender, and failure to pay compensation results in lapse of acquisition proceedings regardless of possession status. This interpretation aligns with the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 due to non-payment of compensation?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi and held that the acquisition in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Lapse of acquisition proceedings
- Requirement of compensation payment
- Distinction between tender and actual payment
- Effect of non-payment on acquisition validity
