DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ANITA SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 5 S.C.R. 655 · Decided: 01-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
655
   [2023] 5 S.C.R. 655
655
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
ANITA SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2994 of 2023)
MAY 01, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4, 6, 11, 30, 31 – Respondent no.1
purchased a land – The said land was subject matter of acquisition
– Notifications u/ss.4 ,6 were issued and thereafter award was
announced – Writ petition was filed invoking s.24(2) of the 2013
Act claiming that neither the compensation has been paid to the
Respondent no.1 nor the possession of the land had been taken by
the acquiring authority, hence, the acquisition lapsed – Land
Acquisition Collector took the stand that possession of the land
was taken and there was dispute regarding ownership of land, so
the compensation for the land was deposited with the Reference
Court – High Court found that one of the conditions laid down in
s.24(2) of the 2013 Act having not been complied with regarding
payment of compensation to the Respondent no.1, the acquisition
has lapsed – On appeal, held: The Constitution Bench of Supreme
Court in Indore Development Authority’s case has opined that
satisfaction of either of the conditions namely either taking
possession of the acquired land or payment of compensation to the
landowners would be sufficient to save the acquisition from being
lapsed in terms of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act – After the acquisition of
land and passing of award, the land vests in the State free from all
encumbrances – The vesting of land with the State is with possession
– From the facts as are available on record, it is evident that
respondent no.1 was admittedly not the recorded owner of the land
at time of acquisition thereof or pronouncement of award by the
Land Acquisition Collector – The amount of compensation was
deposited with the Reference Court in term of Section 30/31 of the
1894 Act as the same could not be paid to Respondent no.1 – Hence,
one of the conditions being satisfied, the order passed by the High
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
656
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 5 S.C.R.
Court cannot be legally sustained whereby the acquisition has been
held to have lapsed in terms of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is the admitted case of Respondent no.1 that
she was not the recorded owner of the land at the time of issuance
of Notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act or even at the time of
the passing of the Award. This is even mentioned in the application
dated 06.05.2009 filed by her to the Land Acquisition Collector
for release of compensation. This establishes knowledge of
acquisition and passing of award. On account of fact that there
was dispute of ownership, the amount of compensation was
deposited by the Land Acquisition Collector with the Reference
Court under Section 30/31 of the 1894 Act. On the issue of deposit
of compensation with the Reference Court, the position of law
has been settled in Indore Development Authority’s case. [Para
9][661-G-H; 662-A-B]
2. The issue as to what is meant by “possession of the land
by the State after its acquisition” has also been considered in
Indore Development Authority’s case. It is opined therein that after
the acquisition of land and passing of award, the land vests in the
State free from all encumbrances. The vesting of land with the
State is with possession. Any person retaining the possession
thereafter has to be treated trespasser. When large chunk of land
is acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person or police
force to retain the possession and start cultivating on the land till
it is utilized. The Government is also not supposed to start
residing or physically occupying the same once process of the
acquisition is complete. If after the process of acquisition is
complete and land vest in the State free from all encumbrances
with possession, any person retaining the land or any re-entry
made by any person is nothing else but trespass on the State
land. [Para 11][664-H; 665-A-C]
3. From the facts as are available on record, it is evident
that Respondent no.1 was admittedly not the recorded owner of
the land at time of acquisition thereof or pronouncement of Award
by the Land Acquisition Collector. The amount of compensation
was deposited with the Reference Court in term of Section 30/31
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
657
of the 1894 Act as the same could not be paid to Respond

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.