Twin condition needs to be satisfied for lapsing of the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India has recently observed that the twin condition of not taking over the possession and not paying / tendering the compensation, are required to be satisfied for lapsing of a land acquisition under section 24(2) of Act f 2013.

The observation was given by Justice MR Shah:

“On merits also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In the said decision, it is observed and held that for lapsing of the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, of not taking over the possession and not paying / tendering the compensation, are required to be satisfied. In the said decision, it is further observed and held that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.”

The petition was filed assailing order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the land in question 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 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.

Court noted that from the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the possession of the subject land had been taken on 26.11.2012 and was handed over to DDA. However, thereafter, the High Court has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation in respect of the entire area of the subject land has not been paid to the original writ Petitioner.

“At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such the original writ petitioner is the subsequent purchaser and the maintainability of the writ petition at his instance was raised before the High Court, however, the High Court has overruled the said petition relying upon the decision in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751.” Court said

The Court relied on the decision pronounced in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 wherein it was held that for lapsing of the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, of not taking over the possession and not paying / tendering the compensation, are required to be satisfied. In the said decision, it is further observed and held that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

In view of the above, the petition succeeded and the order of the High Court of quashed and set aside.

Case Title: DDA v. Dayanand and Others