CASE TITLE:
Government Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Zubair & Anr..
DATE OF ORDER:
2 December 2022
JUDGE(S):
Justice M.R. Shah
Justice C.T. Ravikumar
SUBJECT
The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the present case while interpreting section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, held that the word ‘or’ used in the said section is to be read as ‘and’ or ‘nor’ and as such mere non payment of compensation when possession has been taken can not be a ground for lapse of acquisition proceedings. The Court made these observations while hearing an appeal against the impugned judgement of the learned High Court of Delhi.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- The appellant who is the original respondent in this case challenged the writ petition filed by the original petitioner on the ground that the original petitioner being a subsequent purchaser does not have the right to challenge the acquisition proceeding.
- The date on which the possession was taken over was specifically stated to be 16.07.2007.
- The learned High Court, before which the writ petition was filed, refused to take into consideration the original respondent’s claim and held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensation has not been tendered to the original writ petitioner.
- It is from this impugned judgement of the learned High Court that this appeal is preferred by the original respondent before this Court.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Apex Court after referring to the cases of Delhi Development Authority v.Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors.[Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022], Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. ManavDharam Trust &Anr.[(2017) 6 SCC 751]held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
- The Court observed that the subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013.
- To further give support to its decision the Apex Court reiterated its observation as made in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.[(2020) 8 SCC 129]. It had stated that- “ The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid.”
- Thus, the Court concluded that in case possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid, there will be no lapse of acquisition proceedings. In the same way,if the compensation has been paid but possession has not been taken, there again will be no lapse.
- It also observed that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition nor does it allowthe owners of the lands to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.
CONCLUSION
In view of the above judgements and observations, the Apex Court concluded that the learned High Court erred in holding that mere non payment of compensation can be a ground for lapse of acquisition proceedings u/s 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation an Resettlement Act, 2013. It thus quashed and set aside the impugned order of the High Court.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
