Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High 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: Possession of Land Taken Before Implementation of Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Cannot Result in Deemed Lapse of Acquisition

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India clarified the legal position regarding the deemed lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The case, Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr. vs. Dinesh Kumar & Anr., dealt with the question of whether possession of land taken prior to the implementation of the Act could result in the deemed lapse of acquisition.

The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by Dinesh Kumar and another party, challenging the acquisition of their land. The High Court of Delhi had declared that the acquisition was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, as the compensation had not been paid to the original writ petitioner. However, the Government of NCT Delhi appealed against this decision, contending that possession of the land was taken on December 31, 2013, before the Act came into force on January 1, 2014.

Justice M.R. Shah, delivering the judgment on behalf of the Supreme Court, analyzed the arguments put forth by both parties. The Court observed that the possession of the land in question had indeed been taken on December 31, 2013, as evidenced by the punchnama. The Court emphasized that the drawing of the punchnama constituted a legal mode of taking possession, as established in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.

Furthermore, the Court noted that for a deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, two conditions must be satisfied: non-taking of possession and non-tendering or non-payment of compensation. Since possession had been taken, even if compensation had not been paid, the Court held that there could be no deemed lapse of acquisition. The Court clarified that the High Court's finding, based on the non-payment of compensation, was contrary to the law laid down in the Indore Development Authority case.

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing and setting aside the High Court's judgment. The acquisition of the land in question was held to be valid, and there would be no deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act. The Court ordered that no costs were to be imposed on either party.

This judgment by the Supreme Court provides clarity on the issue of deemed lapse of acquisition and the significance of possession of land taken prior to the implementation of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The ruling ensures that possession taken before the Act's enforcement will not result in the deemed lapse of acquisition, even if compensation has not been paid.

Date: April 28 , 2023

Govt. of NCT Delhi & Anr. vs. Dinesh Kumar & Anr.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/28-Apr-2023-GOVT.-OF-NCT-OF-DELHI-Vs-Dinesh-Kumar.pdf"]

Latest Legal News