IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – If compensation has not been paid due to inter se dispute between co-owners, thereafter, it will not be open for landowners to make a grievance that once compensation was not paid, acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 203 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question comprised in Khasra No. 156 admeasuring 2 bighas, 4 biswas in village Lado Sarai, New Delhi, is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”) the Department of Land and Building and the Land Acquisition Collector have preferred the present appeal.

2. We have heard Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Rishab Nagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1(i) to 1(iv).

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 1986. The award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was declared on 14.09.1986. According to the appellants, the possession of the land in question was taken on 22.09.1986.

3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Jagjeet Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (C) No. 960 of 2015, which was also with respect to Khasra No. 156 admeasuring 2 bighas, 4 biswas in village Lado Sarai, New Delhi, by which the High Court allowed the said writ petition preferred by the landowners and declared that the acquisition with respect to the said land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the High Court has allowed the present Writ Petition (C) No. 203 of 2015 and has disposed of the same in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 960 of 2015.

3.2 However, from the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 960 of 2015 in the case of Jagjeet Singh and Others vs. Union of India and Others, it appears that the High Court has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 183. The High Court in the said case, i.e. Jagjeet Singh and Others (supra), without going into the controversy of physical possession had declared that the acquisition with respect to the said land is deemed to have lapsed as the compensation with respect to the land in question has not been tendered to the recorded owner. However, it cannot be disputed that the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been subsequently specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129.

3.3 However, it is the case on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1(i) to 1(iv) that the Civil Appeal against the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh and Others (supra) has been dismissed by this Court by common judgment and order dated 04.05.2017 and even the review application has been dismissed and therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court may not be interfered with by this Court. However, it is required to be noted that when Civil Appeal No. 6250 of 2017 in the case of Jagjeet Singh and Others (supra) came to be dismissed, the law was not settled, which has ultimately been settled by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and therefore, the decision of this Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh and Others (supra) shall not be of any assistance to the respondents in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). It is required to be noted that the review application has been dismissed on the gr