On 24th November 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh observed that for the purpose of deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, if one of the conditions namely the possession of land has not been taken over and the compensation not paid are not satisfied, there cannot be any lapse. (The Secretary, The Department of Land and Building and Ors. Vs. Anjeet Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Anr.)
Facts of the Case:
In the present case, the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 1986. The award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was declared on 14.09.1986. According to the appellants, the possession of the land in question was taken on 22.09.1986. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 203 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No.1 herein and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question comprised in Khasra No. 156 admeasuring 2 bighas, 4 biswas in village Lado Sarai, New Delhi, 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, the Department of Land and Building and the Land Acquisition Collector have preferred the present appeal.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Rishab Nagar, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1(i) to 1(iv).
Observations and Judgment of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed that “the HC while giving the judgment and order has relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. which was also with respect to Khasra No. 156 admeasuring 2 bighas, 4 biswas in village Lado Sarai, New Delhi, by which the High Court allowed the said writ petition preferred by the landowners and declared that the acquisition with respect to the said land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
This case was y relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors, which was overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. The HC without going into the controversy of physical possession had declared that the acquisition with respect to the said land is deemed to have lapsed as the compensation with respect to the land in question.
Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the compensation was not paid to the landowners in view of the fact that there was ownership dispute between the co-owners with respect to compensation.
Therefore, if the compensation has not been paid due to inter se dispute between the co-owners, thereafter, it will not be open for the respondents – landowners to make a grievance that once the compensation was not paid, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.”
The present appeal allowed, impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court was quashed and set aside.
Case: The Secretary, The Department of Land and Building and Ors. Vs. Anjeet Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Anr.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8196 OF 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh
Date: November 24, 2022.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
