Indore Development Authority Vs Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court Constitution Bench interpreted Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and settled the conflicting decisions governing lapse of acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It held that the word “or” between possession and compensation in Section 24(2) must be read as “nor” or “and”; consequently, deemed lapse occurs only where, owing to inaction of the authorities for five years or more before 1 January 2014, possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. If possession has been taken, non-payment alone does not cause lapse; likewise, payment without possession does not cause lapse.
The Court held that tender of compensation under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act completes the obligation to pay, and a landowner who refused the tender or sought higher compensation cannot invoke Section 24(2) on the ground of non-payment or non-deposit in court. Non-deposit of compensation in court does not itself result in lapse, though the statutory consequences concerning compensation and interest remain applicable. The proviso belongs to Section 24(2), and possession may be taken by drawing an inquest report or memorandum; after possession and vesting under Section 16, Section 24(2) does not provide for divesting.
