Facts
The Petitioners sought release of their alleged 3/4th share in land comprised in Khasra Nos. 4/26, measuring 50.20 acres, and 10/27, measuring 42.7 acres, situated in Village Sahipur Beriwala Bagh, Delhi.
Source reference: p.2, para. 2The Court had earlier directed the Petitioners to justify their contention that the land was acquired through a supplementary award.
Source reference: p.2, para. 3Pursuant to a further direction, the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) filed a status report stating that the relevant land had been acquired pursuant to a Section 4 notification dated 13 November 1959, followed by a Section 6 declaration dated 12 July 1966 and Award No. 2119; possession was taken on 31 July 1968.
Source reference: pp.2–3, paras. 5, 7Compensation in respect of disputed ownership was referred under Sections 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while the balance compensation was paid to the recorded owner.
Source reference: p.3, para. 7A supplementary Award No. 2119A dated 19 September 1986 was subsequently made concerning Khasra No. 4/26/2, measuring 20 bighas.
Source reference: p.2, para. 6Proceedings challenging that award were ultimately rejected after the dismissal of SLP(C) No. 1263/2006 on 13 July 2017.
Source reference: pp.2–4, paras. 6–7The LAC further stated that the compensation of Rs. 4,61,429/- had been deposited in the Revenue Deposit, and the name of one of the Petitioners appeared in the relevant register.
Source reference: pp.2, 4–6, paras. 7–8The writ petition was dismissed at the stage when notice had not yet been issued.
Source reference: p.6, para. 9Issues
Whether the Petitioners were entitled to release of their claimed share in the subject land on the ground that it had been acquired only through a supplementary award, rather than through the original acquisition proceedings.
Source reference: p.2, para. 3Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, owing to alleged non-payment of compensation and/or non-taking of possession.
Source reference: pp.6–7, paras. 9–10Law Applied
The Court applied the acquisition framework under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, together with the consequences of possession under Section 16 and the provisions concerning disputed compensation under Sections 30 and 31.
Source reference: pp.2–4, para. 7It relied principally on Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors., SLP(C) No. 9036/2016, which held that acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act only where, due to governmental inaction for five years or more before 1 January 2014, neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid; possession having been taken or compensation having been paid is sufficient to prevent lapse.
Source reference: pp.6–8, para. 9The decision further recognises that tender of compensation under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act satisfies the obligation to pay, and that a deposit in the Revenue Deposit or non-acceptance by landowners does not by itself invalidate the acquisition.
Source reference: pp.6–8, para. 9Reasoning
The Court found that the LAC’s records established acquisition of the subject land through the 1959 notification, the 1966 declaration and Award No. 2119, with possession taken on 31 July 1968.
Source reference: pp.2–3, paras. 5, 7In relation to the later supplementary award concerning Khasra No. 4/26/2, the Court noted that the acquisition had been upheld in earlier writ proceedings and that the challenge had ultimately failed before the Supreme Court in 2017.
Source reference: pp.2–4, para. 6The compensation had either been paid, referred to the competent court because of ownership disputes, or deposited in the Revenue Deposit, with the relevant register recording the beneficiaries, including a Petitioner.
Source reference: pp.3–6, paras. 7–8Applying Indore Development Authority, the Court held that the twin requirements for lapse under Section 24(2)—failure to take possession and failure to pay compensation—were not satisfied.
Source reference: p.6, para. 9Since the Government asserted, and the records supported, both taking of possession and payment or deposit of compensation, the Petitioners could not claim release of the land or lapse of the acquisition.
Source reference: p.8, para. 10Holding
The Court held that the Petitioners were not entitled to relief because the land had been validly acquired, possession had been taken, and compensation had been paid or deposited.
The conditions for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act were therefore not met.
Source reference: p.8, para. 10The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and no relief for release of the land was granted.
Source reference: p.8, para. 11Acts & Sections Cited
8 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
Land Acquisition Act, 18947
the Act of 2013 (alias, unresolved)1
Original Court PDF
Mahinder Singh & Ors.vsUnion Of India & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
