Case Note & Summary
The case involves a land acquisition dispute where the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against a High Court judgment that declared the acquisition of land lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The first respondent, Jagan Singh, had challenged the acquisition of his land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was initiated by a Section 4 notification on 23 June 1989 and culminated in an award on 18 June 1992. The first respondent filed a writ petition in 1990 challenging the acquisition, which was dismissed on 20 May 2005. On 19 January 2006, the DDA took physical possession of the land. With effect from 1 January 2014, the 1894 Act was repealed and the 2013 Act came into force. On 25 May 2015, the first respondent filed a fresh writ petition contending that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed because compensation had not been paid. The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183, held that the acquisition lapsed and directed the DDA to pay compensation under the 2013 Act. However, on 6 March 2020, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal overruled the Pune Municipal Corporation decision and held that Section 24(2) does not apply where physical possession has been taken, even if compensation is unpaid. The DDA appealed against the High Court's judgment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and held that the acquisition does not lapse. The Court directed that the first respondent is entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act, but the lapsing declaration was incorrect.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapsing of Acquisition - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Interpretation - The issue was whether acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) when possession is taken but compensation not paid - The Supreme Court, following the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, held that Section 24(2) does not apply where physical possession has been taken over, even if compensation is unpaid - The High Court's reliance on the overruled decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki was erroneous - Held that the acquisition does not lapse and the appeal is allowed (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, when physical possession of the land has been taken over but compensation has not been paid to the landowner.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 11 August 2016, and held that the acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court directed that the first respondent is entitled to compensation in accordance with the 2013 Act.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- does not apply where physical possession of the acquired land has been taken over
- even if compensation has not been paid
- the earlier decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki stands overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
