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

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

The High Court's declaration of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) was unsustainable because the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority held that both non-possession and non-payment must co-exist for lapse; here possession was taken (and non-payment resulted from an inter se dispute), so acquisition did not lapse and the High Court order was quashed.

Parties
Appellants: The Secretary, The Department of Land and Building and Ors.; Respondents: Anjeet Singh (dead) through LRs. and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 8196 of 2022 / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside.
Legal Topics
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Deemed Lapse of Acquisition, Possession Vs. Payment of Compensation, Precedent and Overruling
Land Acquisition Compensation Judicial Review Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Deemed Lapse of Acquisition Possession Vs. Payment of Compensation Precedent and Overruling

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary, The Department of Land and Building and Ors.

Appellants

Anjeet Singh (dead) through LRs. and Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 8196 of 2022 / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where compensation was not paid but possession was taken
  2. 2 Whether non-payment of compensation due to inter se dispute between co-owners can ground a claim of deemed lapse under Section 24(2)
  3. 3 Whether the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation remains good law after Indore Development Authority

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court's declaration of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) was unsustainable because the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority held that both non-possession and non-payment must co-exist for lapse; here possession was taken (and non-payment resulted from an inter se dispute), so acquisition did not lapse and the High Court order was quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 25.04.2017 quashed and set aside
  • Present appeal allowed