Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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