IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act.

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. 1870 of 2016 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 has 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 Government of NCT of Delhi as well as the Land Acquisition Collector have preferred the present appeals.

2. We have heard Ms. Astha Tyagi and Shri Nishit Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants and Shri Manish K. Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has 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 and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensation has not been paid/ tendered to the original writ petitioner. However, there is a specific finding given by the High Court that the possession of the subject land has been taken over, however, the compensation has not been paid to the recorded owner.

3.1 It is the case on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that the actual possession of the land in question has not been taken over as the land in question is occupied by the encroachers and that the area in question is known as “Sanjay Mohalla.” However, it is required to be noted and as observed hereinabove, in paragraph 8, the High Court has specifically observed that there is a categorical assertion made in the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession of the subject land has been taken over, however, the compensation has not been paid to the recorded owner. It may be that there may be illegal occupants and/or encroachers, but that does not mean that the possession of the land in question was taken over and/or handed over to the beneficiary department on 21.06.1973. As per the case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector, in any case, the landowner can be permitted to take the benefit of the encroachment made on the land in question. Be that it may, as observed hereinabove, while passing the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another (supra) and the said decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another (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. In paragraphs 365 and 366, it is observed and held as under:

“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183, has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 3 SCC 353, cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412, the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment.

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