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 Sets Aside High Court Order, Land Acquisition Proceedings Deemed Not Lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a decision by the High Court of Delhi, declaring the acquisition proceedings as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). The apex court, in its ruling, stated that the High Court's interpretation was erroneous, as it relied on a previous decision that had been overruled by a Constitution Bench.

The Court, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, observed, "The decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation has been followed are also overruled." The Court clarified that the provisions of Section 24(2) are applicable only when authorities fail to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force. The Court emphasized that non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.

The case pertained to the acquisition of lands in the revenue estate of village Wazirabad, with the Land Acquisition Collector, New Delhi, as the appellant and Jai Prakash Tyagi and others as respondents. The High Court had allowed a writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings, deeming them to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The Court's decision was primarily based on the now-overruled judgment in the Pune Municipal Corporation case.

By setting aside the High Court's order, the Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the acquisition proceedings. However, the Court emphasized that if the original landowners or interested parties have not been paid compensation, they should be provided compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court ordered that their claims be considered on their own merits.

Date of Decision: February 24, 2023

Land Acquisition Collector vs Jai Prakash Tyagi & Ors.                                      

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

Latest Legal News