Failure To Take Possession Or Payment Of Compensation Can Alone Lead To Lapse Of Acquisition Proceedings - SC

The land of the Respondents was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as required for planned development through a notification issued in 1980.

The process of acquisition was challenged in a number of Writ Petitions before the High Court and an interim order of stay of dispossession was granted.

The Apex Court noted that in the Writ Petiton filed by landowners the notification under Section 6 of the Act were quashed which became effective only after the order of the Supreme Court in the cases of Brig. Gurdip Singh Uban v. Union of India, and Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors.

The landowners placed reliance on a precedent and contended before the Supreme Court that once the acquisition proceedings were quashed in a writ petition, the entire proceedings fall through.

The Supreme Court analyzed the different bunches of Writ Petitions that had been decided by the Court regarding the same issue.

Through the analysis of the decisions passed in the aforementioned Petitions, the Court noted that the orders and interim orders passed by various Courts prevented the Appellant from taking possession of the land.

The Bench also noted that the Appellant was prevented by the interim orders in a number of Writ Petitions to take possession. possession. Therefore, prior to the commencement of 2013 Act, there was no stay free period of 5 years which could lead to a declaration that the proceedings stand lapsed.

The Court held that on account of setting aside the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the State could not take possession in view of the orders passed by the High Court.

Setting aside the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.