Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, does a grievance of non-tendering of full compensation raised for the first time about 24 years after the Award sustain a declaration of deemed lapse under Section 24(2)?

No. Nothing was on record to demonstrate that any grievance with respect to non-tendering of the full compensation was made at any point of time until the writ petition was filed, about 24 years after the Award, the department's case being that payment could not be ascertained due to the torn condition of the Naksha Muntzamin. On that footing the view taken by the High Court was unsustainable.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s.24(2) — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.4 — Deemed lapse of acquisition — Twin conditions — Possession taken over — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s.24(2) — Deemed lapse — Twin conditions — Held: A deemed lapse under Section 24(2) is attracted only where twin conditions are satisfied — possession not taken and compensation not tendered; if one of them fails, there is no lapse. (¶2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s.24(2) — Possession handed over — Belated grievance — Held further: Possession taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department defeats a lapse, though payment of compensation could not be ascertained. Appeal allowed. (¶2, 3)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of The Secretary, Land & Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Om Prakash (Dead) Through LRs. & Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India