Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Supreme Court Rules Acquisition Proceedings Not Lapsed If Possession Taken or Compensation Paid

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, do not lapse if possession of the land has been taken or compensation has been paid. The decision came in the case of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr. vs. Subhash Chander Khatri & Ors., where the High Court of Delhi had declared the acquisition proceedings as lapsed due to non-payment of compensation. The Supreme Court, overturning the High Court's decision, held that the acquisition should continue and compensation must be determined as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The Constitution Bench, in its ruling, observed, "The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to the commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid, then there is no lapse."

The Court emphasized that the previous decision in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki case, which had been relied upon by the High Court, had been overruled. Instead, the Court referred to the Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. case, stating that compensation should be determined under the provisions of the Act, 2013.

In the present case, it was established that the possession of the subject land had been taken and it had been put to use for the construction of Bankner Link Drain. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that there was no lapse of the acquisition with regard to the subject land, setting aside the High Court's judgment.

The ruling clarifies that possession and payment of compensation are crucial factors in determining whether an acquisition has lapsed or not. It provides much-needed clarity and a consistent approach to land acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013, and establishes a precedent for future cases.

Date of Decision: February 24, 2023

National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr.   vs Subhash Chander Khatri & Ors.                              

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/24-Feb-2023-NCT-vs-Subash-Land.pdf"]

Latest Legal News