SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 1814

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv., Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv., Mr. Rajinde Juneja, Adv., Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv., Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR, Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Acquisition deemed to have lapsed where non-action for five years has occurred and both possession has not been taken nor compensation paid - High Court's reliance on overruled decision invalidates its finding. (Paras 5, 6)

(B) The Supreme Court clarified that non-deposit of compensation does not result in the lapse of proceedings if possession has been taken or compensation was tendered - The law regarding land acquisition is clarified to prevent misuse. (Paras 6)

Facts of the case:
The Land Acquisition Collector challenged a High Court ruling deeming part of a land acquisition to have lapsed under Section 24(2) based on prior unsuccessful awards made under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the High Court's ruling unsustainable and redirected the matter for reconsideration on merits.

Issues: Whether the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed due to inaction for five years and the interpretation of Section 24(2) concerning possession and compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that merely failing to deposit compensation does not authorize the lapse of acquisition if the landowner was tendered compensation, and it endorsed the clarification on the interpretation of Section 24(2).

Result: Appeal allowed in part; matter remanded to High Court.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top