The possession of the land and payment of compensation are crucial in determining the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013.

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. 11238 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1894”) with regard to the land in question 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 Government of NCT of Delhi and Another have preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector filed before the High Court, which is reproduced by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order in paragraph 6, it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 03.12.2012 after preparing possession proceeding on the spot and was handed over to the beneficiary department, i.e. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) immediately. It was also pointed out that the compensation was also sent to the Reference Court on 28.10.2014 as there was an apportionment dispute.

2.1 In spite of above, solely on the ground that the compensation was not tendered prior to coming into force of the Act, 2013 and relying 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 has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.2 The view taken by the High Court relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another (supra) is unsustainable in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has 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 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 bee