Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

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