Explore the detailed legal analysis of a recent court judgment that delves into the complexities of land acquisition laws. The court’s meticulous examination of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, sheds light on crucial aspects such as compensation, possession, and the implications of prior court decisions. Stay informed with this comprehensive overview of the intricacies surrounding land acquisition proceedings.
Analysis
- The Delhi Development Authority has appealed the High Court’s decision in a land acquisition case.
- The High Court declared the land acquisition as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
- High Court based its decision on non-payment of compensation to landowners and the Pune Municipal Corporation case.
- Delhi Development Authority argued possession of the land had already been taken.
- The Pune Municipal Corporation case was overruled by the Constitution Bench in the Indore Development Authority case.
- The conclusion in paragraph 366 of the judgement clarified the answers to the legal questions raised.
- Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act deems land acquisition proceedings to lapse if authorities fail to take possession or pay compensation for five years prior to the commencement of the Act.
- If possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid, there is no lapse.
- The proviso to Section 24(2) states that if compensation has not been deposited for the majority of landholdings, there is no lapse.
- Non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
- If the award has not been made by 1-1-2014, there is no lapse.
- If the award is made within the five-year window period excluding interim court orders, proceedings continue as per the 1894 Act.
- Compensation is considered ‘paid’ under Section 24(2) when tendered under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act.
- Tendering compensation under Section 31(1) prevents a claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2).
- Once possession is taken after an award under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, there is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- The word ‘or’ in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation can be read as ‘nor’ or ‘and’.
- The deemed lapse provision applies when authorities fail to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before 1-1-2014.
- The period of interim court orders is excluded from the five-year calculation.
- Interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act can be granted if obligations under Section 31 have not been fulfilled.
- Compensation under the 2013 Act must be paid to landowners as of the date of notification for land acquisition under the 1894 Act if no deposit has been made for five years or more for the majority of holdings.
- Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not create a new cause of action to challenge the legality of concluded land acquisition proceedings.
- Section 24 only applies to proceedings pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014.
- It does not revive expired claims or allow landowners to question mode of possession or compensation deposition post conclusion of proceedings.
- The decision in the case of Indore Development Authority overrules the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation relied upon by the High Court.
- The judgment and order of the High Court is unsustainable and should be quashed.
Also Read: Quashing of Enhanced Tuition Fee in Private Medical Colleges
Decision
- The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court has been quashed and set aside.
- Consequently, the original writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner has been dismissed.
- The present appeal has succeeded.
Also Read: Final Decision and Disclosure in Collegium Meetings
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. BHAGWAT SINGH (2022 INSC 1153)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007961-007961 / 2022
