Supreme Court of India· 17 February 2023

Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, does a writ petitioner who is not the recorded owner have locus to seek a declaration of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) where the land admittedly belongs to Gram Sabha?

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

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.24(2) Right to Fair Compensati…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. Where it was admitted on behalf of the original writ petitioner that the land belongs to Gram Sabha, and he was not even the recorded owner, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition at his instance. Even the question with respect to 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, 1894

One 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 account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

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?Does Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki still hold good on deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections