Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Government of Nct of Delhi Through Its Secretary & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Om Prakash & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 199 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 19578 of 2015)
Decided On : 06-01-2022
Land Acquisition - Lapsing of Acquisition Proceedings - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2)
Fact of the Case:
The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents, holding that acquisition proceedings stand lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order was not sustainable in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129. The Court also rejected the argument that the land owners were entitled to seek release of land in terms of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Issues: The main issue was whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed in accordance with Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and whether the land owners were entitled to seek release of land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and held that once the High Court has passed an order of lapsing of the acquisition proceedings, the land owners cannot revert back on the plea raised under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court also clarified that Section 48 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act does not confer any right with a landowner to seek withdrawal from the acquisition from the State Government.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order passed by the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd September, 2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 3066 of 2013.
3. The writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed by the High Court holding that acquisition proceedings stand lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act").
4. The order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in view of the Constitution Bench judgment, Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129.
5. However, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the land owners submitted that the challenge in the writ petition was to an order passed by the appellant on a representation under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in terms of the directions issued by the High Court. Mr. Jain prayed that the matter be remanded back to the High Court for decision on the prayer made in the writ petition.
6. We do not find any merit in the argument raised by Mr. Jain. Once the High Court has passed an order of lapsing of the acquisition proceedings by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, the land owners cannot revert back on the plea raised that they are entitled to seek release of land in terms of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since repealed. The liberty is reserved with the State Government to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken. Section 48 of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act does not confer any right with a landowner to seek withdrawal from the acquisition from the State Government.
7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.
The Court clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and emphasized that once the....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Where possession could not be taken due to stay order/pending litigation, matters are required to be remanded for fresh decision.
A subsequent purchaser has no standing to challenge the acquisition or its lapsing.
The application of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded proceedings but applies to pending proceedings as on its enforcement date.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Subsequent buyer of property after issuance of notification under Section 4 the 1894 Act has no locus to invoke Section 24(2) of 2013 Act.
Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is crucial in determining the lapse of land acquisiti....
Possession and compensation aspects are crucial in determining the sustainability of relief under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013.
A subsequent purchaser has no standing to challenge the acquisition or lapse of acquisition proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
