SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Land Acquisition Collector (NW) - Appellant
Versus
Vivek & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 939 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3099/2023 @ D. No. 27645/2022)
Decided on : 09-02-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. rationale for overruling previous judgments. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 2. background on land acquisition proceedings. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. order to remand case to high court. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.5225 of 2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to only small portion of the land acquired 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 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”), the Land Acquisition Collector, Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
5. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector [LAC] before the High Court, it appears in para 4 & 5, which reads as under:-
“4. That it is submitted that the lands of village Mangolpur Kalan were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 dated 24.10.1961 which was followed by Notification under section 6 of the said Act vide Notification dated 25.07.1966. That it is submitted that the then Land Acquisition Collector also passed an Award No.18/80-81 dated on 23.04.1980.
5. That it is submitted that the possession of the land bearing khasra no. 29/15 (5-07) of village- Mangolpur Kalan is in ownership right of Gram Sabha (Full Share). Possession of Khara no. 29/15 min (5-0) was duly taken on 01.05.1980 and possession of remaining area i.e. (0-7) was not taken due to built up. However, the awarded compensation with respect to the said land which was taken over, has been released to Gram Sabha through its Pradhan on 03.02.1982.”
However, despite the above, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and has declared the acquisition with respect to the land ad-measuring (0-7) out of 5 bighas and 7 biswas is deemed to have lapsed. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), which been relied upon by the High Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order, has been subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129. In Paragraphs 365 and 366, this Court has observed and held as under:
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether ‘or’ has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’ was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment.
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24 (1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24 (1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Ac
Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129 [Para 5]
AI
The interpretation of Section 24(2) requires both possession and compensation to be considered for deeming land acquisition proceedings as lapsed.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Once possession of land in question was taken over on 12.03.1981 then acquisition of land in question is not deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of Right ....
Non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
Non-payment or non-deposit of compensation does not lead to a lapse if possession has been taken or if compensation has been paid.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Fact that possession of land in question was taken over on 21.04.2006, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – In case a person has been tendered compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Se....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Fact that possession of land in question was taken over on 14.07.1987, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition.
The interpretation and application of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 are crucial in determining whether there is a deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings based on possession, compensation, and ....
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Original writ petitioner cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own conduct/wrong.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.