Supreme Court: Possession of Land Taken Before Implementation of Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Cannot Result in Deemed Lapse of Acquisition

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.

• Lawyer E- News Android Mobile App
• Latest Legal News

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