Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for land in village Chattarpur, New Delhi. A notification under Section 4 was issued on 25.11.1980, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on 07.06.1985. Some affected parties challenged the acquisition, leading to the quashing of the Section 6 declaration in Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India. However, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Gurdeep Singh Uban held that the quashing was not in rem and applied only to the petitioners. Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Collector passed an award, and compensation was deposited in court on 30.12.2013. The respondent, Suresh B. Kapur, filed a writ petition in 2015 seeking a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, arguing that neither possession had been taken nor compensation paid. The High Court allowed the petition, relying on its earlier decision in Gyanender Singh v. Union of India and the Supreme Court's decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, holding that mere deposit of compensation in court is not sufficient and that possession had not been taken. The Land Acquisition Collector appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court held that the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and clarified that under Section 24(2), the word 'or' must be read as 'nor' or 'and', meaning deemed lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Since compensation was deposited in court, the condition of payment was satisfied, and there was no lapse. The Court also noted that the pendency of litigation prevented the authorities from taking possession, and the landowners could not benefit from that delay. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's declaration of lapse was set aside.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Deemed Lapse under Section 24(2) - Interpretation of 'or' - The Supreme Court held that the word 'or' in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation must be read as 'nor' or 'and'. Deemed lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. If either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid (including deposit in court), there is no lapse. (Paras 6.1, 366.3) B) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Deposit in Court - The expression 'paid' in Section 24(2) does not include deposit of compensation in court; however, the consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso. In this case, compensation was deposited in court, so the condition of payment was satisfied. (Paras 6.1, 366.4) C) Land Acquisition - Effect of Pendency of Litigation - The pendency of proceedings challenging acquisition prevented taking of possession; the benefit of such delay cannot be given to landowners. (Para 3.2) D) Precedent - Overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation - The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183, which held that mere deposit of compensation is not sufficient, has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. (Paras 3.3, 365)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that the acquisition of land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, when compensation was deposited in court but possession was not taken.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside. The declaration that the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is quashed.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- deemed lapse
- deposit of compensation in court
- possession not taken
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
- overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
