Explore the intricate legal analysis of a recent court ruling on land acquisition proceedings and lapse under the Act 2013. The High Court’s detailed examination of compensation, possession, and the provisions of the law provides valuable insights into the complexities surrounding land acquisition cases. Stay tuned to unravel the nuances of this important legal decision.
Analysis
- The High Court held that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 due to non-payment of compensation to the landowners.
- The High Court based its decision on the Pune Municipal Corporation case and other cases following it.
- However, the Pune Municipal Corporation case was overruled by a Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others in 2020.
- Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applies to cases where possession of land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid due to authorities’ inaction for five years or more before the Act came into force.
- The lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) does not occur if possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid, or if compensation has been paid but possession has not been taken.
- The proviso to Section 24(2) states that if compensation has not been deposited for the majority of landholdings, all beneficiaries as of the notification date for land acquisition are entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act.
- Non-deposit of compensation leads to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, being granted.
- In cases of non-deposit for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act must be paid to the landowners as of the notification date for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
- Indore Development Authority case decision not overruled by the Court.
- Acquisition proceedings not deemed to have lapsed under the Act, 2013.
- High Court judgment relying on overruled case is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Decision
- The writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner before the High Court has been dismissed.
- The impugned judgment and order by the High Court has been quashed and set aside.
- The present appeal has succeeded based on the discussion and reasons provided.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Case Title: AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRA Vs. ANEK SINGH (2022 INSC 612)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002914-002914 / 2022
