LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) v. HARI CHAND AND ANR.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- M. R. Shah
- Ahsanuddin Amanullah
- Judgment Date
- 2023-04-19
- Court Decision / Holding
- Appeal allowed. The impugned High Court judgment is quashed and set aside. There shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition with respect to the land in question. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
- Final Disposition
- Appeal allowed; no costs; pending applications disposed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH)
Respondents
- Hari Chand
- Anr.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Chandra Prakash
- • C. P. Rajwar
- • Vivek Singh
- • Ms. Somi Sharma
Counsels for Respondents
- • H Nitin Mishra
- • Ishaan Sharma
Case Synopsis & Summary
The Land Acquisition Collector (South), New Delhi, appeals the High Court of Delhi’s order in Writ Petition (C) No. 3435 of 2016, which held that the land acquisition for the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). The appellant contends that possession of the land was taken on 14 July 1987 and that the High Court’s reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183, which linked non-payment of compensation to deemed lapse, was misplaced. The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 overruled Pune’s reasoning and clarified the correct interpretation of Section 24(2): deemed lapse requires five years of inaction prior to 1-1-2014 where neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid, with various nuanced readings of the word “or.” The Court held that where possession was taken long before the Act’s enforcement, there is no deeming lapse. Applying Indore to the facts, the possession having been taken in 1987, the impugned High Court judgment is unsustainable. The appeal succeeds; the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside, with no deemed lapse. The appeal is allowed; no costs; pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellant argues that possession of the land was taken on 14 July 1987 and that the High Court’s reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 - which held that non-payment of compensation can trigger a deemed lapse - is based on authority overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Constitution Bench clarified that deemed lapse under Section 24(2) arises only in the context of five years of inaction prior to 1-1-2014 where neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid; it further held that where possession has been taken, non-payment does not cause lapse, and there are nuanced readings of the word “or.” Applying this to the facts—possession long since taken—the acquisition cannot lapse. The appellant seeks to have the High Court’s order set aside and the proceedings continue under the 2013 Act; the decision in Indore should govern the result.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued that the High Court correctly held that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment of compensation. They relied on the Pune decision as controlling and contended that the five-year clock and the inaction provisions within the 2013 Act should lead to lapse. They asserted that non-deposit of compensation (and non-payment) in the relevant period triggers lapse, and that the protection offered by the proviso to Section 24(2) concerns only certain landowners and does not revive stale claims that were concluded before 2014. They maintained that the relief sought by the appellant would undermine the statutory framework and the remedy under the 1894 Act and 2013 Act as applied to those holdings where compensation remained unpaid or was paid but possession not taken.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki | (2014) 3 SCC 183; [2014] 1 SCR 783 | Overruled | Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority overruled Pune’s view and related precedents. |
| Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. | (2020) 8 SCC 129; [2020] 3 SCR 1 | Positive | Constitution Bench reasoning applied; controls disposition and rejects Pune’s approach. |
| Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu | (2015) 3 SCC 353; [2015] 3 SCR | Overruled | Cannot be said to be good law; overruled by present judgment. |
| Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra | (2018) 3 SCC 412; [2018] 3 SCR 412 | Overruled | Cannot prevail in light of the present judgment’s discussion. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) v. HARI CHAND AND ANR. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.