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 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