Non - Deposit of Compensation Can Not Lapse the Land Acquisition Proceedings – Supreme Court

Supreme Court observed in the latest Judgement (Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Krishan Kumar & Ors D.D. 17 Feb 2022) that when compensation has not been paid or possession has not been taken for a certain period and clarifies that non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. It also notes that Section 24 does not give rise to new legal claims or allow landowners to challenge the legality of concluded proceedings.

Facts - The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) had claimed that the lands were acquired in 1964, and possession of the land was taken on 10.04.1997 and handed over to the beneficiary department. The compensation for the land was not paid to the recorded owners and is lying deposited. The writ petitioners admitted that the possession of the land was not with them.

Despite the LAC's claim and the writ petitioner's admission that they were not in possession of the land, the High Court relied on a previous court decision and declared that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, since compensation had not been paid.

The High Court had relied on a previous court decision that had been overruled by a Constitution Bench decision. The LAC had produced on record the possession proceedings, which complied with the law.

The Government of NCT of Delhi and others have filed an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi, which allowed a writ petition and declared that the acquisition of lands in question has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

The Supreme Court applied the law laid down in the case of Indore Development Authority to the facts of the case and held that the High Court's judgment and order declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in relying on the Pune Municipal Corporation decision, which had been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and held that the acquisition of lands in question had not lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and held that there shall not be any deemed lapsed as observed and held by the High Court.

Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Krishan Kumar & Ors