LA Act: Acquisition Is Saved From Being Lapsed Upon Either Possession Of Acquired Land Or Compensation Being Paid To Landowners: SC Reiterates
Finding that the first Respondent was admittedly not the recorded owner of the land at the time of acquisition thereof or pronouncement of Award by the Land Acquisition Collector and that the amount of compensation was deposited with the Reference Court in term of Section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as the same could not be paid to the Respondent, the Supreme Court held that the order passed by the High Court cannot be legally sustained whereby the acquisition has been held to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
A two-judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, therefore, referred to the decision in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [(2020) 8 SCC 129] and reiterated that "once possession has been taken though the payment has not been made, the compensation has to be paid along with interest as envisaged under Section 34, and in a case, payment has been made, possession has not been taken, there is no lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act".
Advocate Ashwani Kumar appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Sujeeta Srivastava appeared for the Respondent.
In a brief background of the case, the first Respondent had purchased 100 square yards by virtue of a sale deed, and said land was subject matter of acquisition. A Notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued and thereafter, the award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Respondent therefore filed a writ in the year 2016 invoking Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that neither the compensation has been paid to them nor the possession of the land had been taken by the acquiring authority, and hence, the acquisition lapsed. The High Court found that one of the conditions laid down in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having not been complied with regarding payment of compensation to the Respondent, the acquisition has lapsed. Hence, the present appeal.
After considering the submissions, the Apex Court noted that the first Respondent had admitted that she was not the recorded owner of the land at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act or even at the time of the passing of the Award.
Accordingly, the Apex Court observed that there was a dispute of ownership, and the amount of compensation was deposited by the Land Acquisition Collector with the Reference Court under Section 30/31 of the 1894 Act.
“As per the stand taken by the appellant, the land in question is being utilised for UER-II, which is connecting NH-1, NH-10 and NH-8 further connecting it to NH-2. The said project is of great public importance and has to be completed before 15.08.2023 in light of Amrit Mahotsav (75 years of Independence). This will help in de-congestion of Delhi”, added the Court.
Hence, the Apex Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Delhi Development Authority v. Anita Singh & Ors.
