Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) against a High Court order declaring that the acquisition of land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act). The respondent, Anita Singh, had purchased 100 square yards of land in Village Dichaun Kalan, Delhi, which was subject to acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the 1894 Act). A notification under Section 4 was issued on 07.04.2006, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on 04.04.2007, and an award under Section 11 on 30.12.2008. The respondent filed a writ petition in 2016 claiming that neither compensation had been paid nor possession taken, and thus the acquisition had lapsed. The Land Acquisition Collector contended that possession was taken on 10.02.2012 except for 3 biswas of land, and compensation was deposited with the Reference Court on 27.12.2013 due to disputes over ownership. The High Court held that since compensation was not paid to the respondent, the acquisition lapsed. The Supreme Court, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, held that deposit of compensation with the Reference Court constitutes payment under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court found that the compensation was deposited before the commencement of the 2013 Act, and possession was taken, so the acquisition did not lapse. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Payment of Compensation - Deposit with Reference Court - Where compensation is deposited with the Reference Court due to dispute over ownership or non-acceptance, it constitutes 'payment of compensation' under Section 24(2) - The court held that the deposit of compensation with the Reference Court on 27.12.2013, prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, satisfies the requirement of payment, and the acquisition does not lapse (Paras 6-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether deposit of compensation with the Reference Court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, constitutes 'payment of compensation' under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, thereby preventing lapse of acquisition.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 22.08.2017, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent. The Court held that the deposit of compensation with the Reference Court constitutes payment under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and since possession was taken, the acquisition did not lapse.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- deposit of compensation with Reference Court
- payment of compensation
- possession of land
- lapse of acquisition
