IMPORTANT POINTS
An amendment taking away accrued right, in absence of clear legislative intent giving it retrospective effect, cannot be taken to be retrospective.
Compensation neither paid to the land owner nor deposited in Reference Court but in Treasury cannot be taken as ‘deemed payment’.

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The question for consideration is whether the compulsory acquisition of the appellant’s land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapses in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act’). In our opinion, the question must be answered in the affirmative and it must be held that the compulsory acquisition of the appellant’s land has lapsed.

The Facts

3. A notification was issued by the State Government under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 12th November, 1992 proposing to acquire a large chunk of land. This was followed by a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued on 21st July, 1993. Although, a large chunk of land was acquired by virtue of these two notifications, the appellant is concerned only with its land admeasuring about 14.90 acres.

4. The compulsory acquisition of the appellant’s land led to proceedings for adjudication of the compensation due from the State Government. Accordingly, an Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 22nd February, 1995 and the compensation determined at Rs.35,52,528/-. For reasons that are not clear, the compensation was not tendered to the appellant but was deposited in the Treasury. The appellant challenged the quantum of compensation in the Reference Court and when that was enhanced, the enhanced compensation was deposited in the Reference Court.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the acquisition of its land, the appellant preferred C.W.P. No. 2996 of 1995 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein the above two notifications were challenged. As an interim measure, the High Court directed the maintenance of status quo and since the appellant was in actual, physical, vacant and peaceful possession it continued to remain so in view of the interim orders.

6. The writ petition filed by the appellant was eventually dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 24th April, 2012.

7. The appellant has challenged the decision of the High Court in this Court and during the pendency of this appeal, Parliament enacted the Act which came into force with effect from 1st January, 2014.

Proceedings in this Court

8. As a result of the coming into force of the Act, the appellant moved I.A. No. 4 of 2014 in this Court being an application for directions to the effect that the acquisition proceedings by which the appellant’s land was acquired had lapsed. Reference was made in the application to the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act as well as a decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183. It was stated in the application that the appellant was in possession of the acquired land and that the respondents had only taken paper possession thereof. It was also stated that the compensation for the compulsory acquisition of the land was deposited in the Treasury and not in the Reference Court and that the appellant has not withdrawn the compensation so awarded. The enhanced compensation was, however, deposited in the Reference Court.

9. A reply to I.A. No.4 of 2014 was filed by respondent no. 3 on or about 12th August, 2014 in the form of a counter affidavit. It was stated in the reply that the entire acquired land was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to the then Estate Officer, Urban Estates, Punjab. The compensation of Rs. 35,52,528/-was deposited with the Treasury of the State Government and subsequently deposited in the Reference Court by the Land Acquisition Collector on 26th June, 2014. However, the enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,91,77,074/-was deposited in the Reference Court.

10. With regard to possession of the acquired land it was stated that the respondents are in actual, physical possession of the land. On this basis, it was contented that this appeal itself deserves dismis