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 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