Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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