Delve into the legal intricacies of a recent court judgment on land acquisition proceedings. The Constitution Bench’s analysis sheds light on the interpretation and application of relevant laws in such cases. Stay tuned to discover the key takeaways from this significant legal development.
Facts
- The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and Government of NCT of Delhi have filed appeals against the common judgment and order dated 24.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No 5048/2016.
- The High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents, causing dissatisfaction and grievance to the appellants.
- The Government of NCT of Delhi has also appealed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the same High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No 19 of 2018, wherein the acquisition of land was declared as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- Another appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 14.05.2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No 4760 of 2016, where the High Court allowed the original writ petitioners’ plea.
- The Government of NCT of Delhi declared that the acquisition of the land in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- No representatives from the original writ petitioners appeared during the proceedings.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Analysis
- The Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 held that the judgement and orders passed by the High Court are contrary to the law laid down in the aforementioned case.
- The High Court’s judgements and orders are unsustainable and are quashed and set aside.
- The appeals are allowed with no costs.
- Any pending applications are also disposed of.
- Once compensation is tendered under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, the claimant cannot claim acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit in court.
- The obligation to pay compensation is fulfilled by tendering the amount under Section 31(1).
- Landowners who refused compensation or sought higher compensation cannot claim acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- The proviso to Section 24(2) is considered part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
- Section 24(2) applies when authorities fail to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force in pending land acquisition proceedings as of 1-1-2014.
- The period of interim court orders is excluded from the computation of the five-year period.
- Section 24 applies to pending proceedings as of 1-1-2014
- Section 24(2) does not create new grounds to challenge concluded land acquisition proceedings
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Admission Irregularities in Educational Institutions
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHIV KUMAR (2022 INSC 1021)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006885-006885 / 2022
