Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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