Supreme Court of India· 17 February 2023
Can a High Court grant a declaration of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act while keeping the question of ownership of the acquired land open and undecided?
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Dhannu & Anr.
2023 INSC 138 · CIVIL APPEAL NO.942 OF 2023
Coram: M.R. Shah; C.T. Ravikumar; Sanjay Karol
Answer
No. Having kept the question of ownership open without deciding it, the High Court could not entertain the writ petition at the instance of a person who was not even the recorded owner. A declaration under Section 24(2), and the compensation to be paid, would arise only in favour of the recorded owner or in favour of a person who had a title.
Headnote
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s.24(2) — Deemed lapse — Locus of writ petitioner — Recorded owner — Land belonging to Gram Sabha — Precedent over-ruled —
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s.24(2) — Locus — petitioner not the recorded owner —
Held: Where the land belongs to Gram Sabha, as admitted, a writ petitioner who is not the recorded owner has no locus to seek a declaration of deemed lapse under Section 24(2). (¶2)
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s.24(2) — Precedent — Pune Municipal Corporation over-ruled —
Held further: Pune Municipal Corporation stands specifically over-ruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority; an order resting on it is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed. (¶2, 3)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 2From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that while allowing the writ petition the High Court has relied upon and/or followed the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 on the ground that the possession of the subject land could not be taken. It is required to be noted that before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant that the land belongs to Gram Sabha and therefore the original writ petitioner had no locus to pray for declaration that the acquisition with respect to subject land is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, without deciding the question of ownership and keeping the same open, the High Court has entertained the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even before the High Court the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioner did not dispute that the land belongs to Gram Sabha. In that view of the matter when the land belongs to Gram Sabha which was even admitted on behalf of the original writ petitioner, the High Court ought not to have entertained the said writ petition at the instance of the original writ petitioner who was not even the recorded owner. Even the question with respect to the compensation to be paid would arise only in favour of recorded owner and/or in favour of a person who had a title.
Acts & Sections
s.24(2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013s.31 Land Acquisition Act, 1894s.34 Land Acquisition Act, 1894s.4 Land Acquisition Act, 1894s.16 Land Acquisition Act, 1894One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Dhannu & Anr. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →