THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND BUILDING AND ORS. versus ANJEET SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 678 · Decided: 24-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND
BUILDING AND ORS.
v.
ANJEET SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8196 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 24, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
High Court relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Jagjeet
Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., in which it had relied on the
decision of Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. – High Court without
entering into the question of possession, declared that the acquisition
with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2)
of the Act, 2013 as the compensation with respect to the land in
question was not paid – Held: The case of Pune Municipal corporation
which was relied on by High Court has already been overruled by
subsequent Supreme Court decision in Indore Development authority
v. Manoharlal and Ors. in which the Constitution Bench held that for
the purpose of deemed lapse of land acquisition u/s.24(2) of 2013
Act, both the conditions namely the possession has not been taken
and compensation not paid are required to be satisfied – In the
intant case, as compensation was not paid due to inter se dispute
between co- owners therefore respondents cannot make the claim
of deemed lapse of acquisition – In view of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority, the
impugned judgment of High Court unsustainable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. From the judgment and order passed by the High
Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India &
Ors., it appears that the High Court has heavily relied upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 183. The High Court in the said case, i.e., Jagjeet
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 678
678
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
679
Singh & Ors., without going into the controversy of physical
possession had declared that the acquisition with respect to the
said land is deemed to have lapsed as the compensation with
respect to the land in question has not been tendered to the
recorded owner. However, it cannot be disputed that the decision
of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
has been subsequently specifically overruled by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [Para 3.2][681-E-G]
2. It was the specific case on behalf of the authority that the
possession of the land in question was already taken over on
22.09.1986. However, thereafter without entering into the
question of possession, the High Court has declared that the
acquisition with respect to land in question is deemed to have
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensation
with respect to the land in question was not paid. As observed
and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority for the purpose of deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both the
conditions namely the possession of land has not been taken over
and the compensation not paid are required to be satisfied. As
observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority, if one of the conditions are not satisfied,
there cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013. [Para 3.4][682-C-F]
3. It is required to be noted that in the present case, the
compensation was not paid to the landowners in view of the fact
that there was ownership dispute between the co-owners with
respect to compensation. Therefore, if the compensation has not
been paid due to inter se dispute between the co-owners,
thereafter, it will not be open for the respondents – landowners
to make a grievance that once the compensation was not paid,
the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed. In any case, in view of
the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court was held to be unsustainable. [Para 3.5 and 3.6][685-A-B;
685-D-E]
THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND BUILDING v.
ANJEET SINGH (DEAD) THR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
680
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – fo

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