1. Land acquisition — Claim of lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 489
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority and Another – Appellants
Versus
Ram Newaj and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2916 of 2022
Decided On : 20-05-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – In case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse – Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – In case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse – Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – High Court has held that acquisition proceedings with respect to plots in question shall stand lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of Act, 2013 solely on the ground that, though deposit of compensation was made in Treasury, but same was not deposited in Court and consequently payment of compensation was not made to land owners – Provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before 2013 Act came into force – In case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse – Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse – In case a person has been tendered compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court – In present case, as amount of compensation was deposited with Treasury and even possession was already taken over on 07.09.2005, impugned judgment and order passed by High Court holding that land acquisition proceedings with respect to lands in question are deemed to have lapsed deserves to be quashed and set aside. (Paras 3, 3.1 and 4)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Bench No.3962 of 2005 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein – original writ petitioners and has held that acquisition proceedings in respect of the three plots in question pertaining to the original writ petitioners stand lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority and another has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner before the High Court stands dismissed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
land acquisition
- lapse of proceedings (Para 3)
-
land acquisition
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Singh, Ad. Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv. Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Praveen Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sajith. P, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, adv. Mr. Gourav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anurag Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R.K. Singh, Ad. Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv. Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Praveen Pathak, Adv. Mr. Sajith. P, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prithvi Yadav, adv. Mr. Gourav Lomes, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Anurag Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is deposited in the treasury instead of the court. (Para 3 )
3. The court observed that non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in lapse and that taking possession of land prevents proceedings from lapsing. (Para 3 )
4. Land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment quashed — Original writ petition dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. When do land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Proceedings lapse only if both possession of land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to the Act's commencement. (Para 3 )
7. Does the non-deposit of compensation in court lead to the lapse of acquisition proceedings?
No, the non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. (Para 3 )
8. What is the effect of taking possession of land on the lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2)?
Once possession is taken under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in the State, and there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Para 3 )
9. Does Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act allow for the reopening of concluded land acquisition proceedings?
No, Section 24(2) applies only to proceedings pending as of January 1, 2014, and does not reopen concluded proceedings or revive stale and time-barred claims. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Bench No. 3962 of 2005 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein-original writ petitioners and has held that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the three plots in question pertaining to the original writ petitioners stand lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’) the Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority and another has preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
3. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has held that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the three plots in question shall stand lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that, though the deposit of the compensation was made in the Treasury, but the same was not deposited in the Court and consequently the payment of compensation of the amount was not made to the land owners. The High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others, (2016) 16 SCC 258. However, in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. In paragraph 366 of the aforesaid judgment this Court has observed and held as under:
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and.” The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (land-owners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “land-owners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a
