Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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