Land Acquistion >> Property & Real Estate  

In a recent judicial decision of Anand Prakash vs State and Others, the Delhi High Court addressed a significant case concerning the lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). The case centered on a petitioner’s claim regarding agricultural land in village Bamnoli, Delhi. The petitioner contended that the acquisition of his land, measuring 5 bighas and 13 biswas, had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and the alleged non-possession of the land, in accordance with Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The land in question was part of a larger acquisition scheme initiated on November 4, 2004, aimed at developing Dwarka Phase-II in New Delhi. Despite the issuance of a Section 4 notification and a Section 6 declaration, and an award made on August 6, 2008, the petitioner claimed that he had not received compensation.

Procedural History:

The petitioner initially sought redress through various administrative and judicial channels. His application for allotment of plots in lieu of his agricultural land was rejected by the Consolidation Officer/Tehsildar in 2005. Subsequent appeals and a writ petition challenging these decisions were also dismissed. The petitioner’s Special Leave Petitions to the Supreme Court were withdrawn in 2014, with the Court granting him the liberty to approach the High Court.

Upon the enactment of the 2013 Act, the petitioner argued that the acquisition had lapsed. The High Court, in its judgment dated October 1, 2014, agreed with the petitioner and declared the acquisition lapsed. This decision was later appealed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Intervention:

The Supreme Court, in its decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others (2020), clarified that both conditions under Section 24(2)—non-payment of compensation and non-possession—must be fulfilled for an acquisition to lapse. Following this, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the High Court to reassess whether the possession of the land had been taken.

Key Findings:

Upon reconsideration, the High Court examined the affidavits and evidence submitted by the parties. It was determined that possession of the petitioner’s land had been taken over by the LAC and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on September 12, 2007. Additionally, while compensation payments were incomplete, significant portions had been disbursed.

The court found that the primary condition of possession being taken was met. Despite discrepancies in compensation distribution reported by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the evidence confirmed that possession had been duly transferred. Thus, the twin conditions for the acquisition to lapse under Section 24(2) were not both satisfied.

Conclusion:

In light of the findings, the High Court concluded that the acquisition of the petitioner’s land had not lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with each party required to bear its own legal costs. This ruling underscores the necessity of meeting both conditions set forth in Section 24(2) for a successful claim of land acquisition lapse, clarifying the legal interpretation of the 2013 Act’s provisions.

  LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894