IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – 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) of 2013 Act due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 10800 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is deemed to have 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 Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that though in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court filed by the Land Acquisition Collector it was stated that the possession was taken on 19.01.2006. However, the details of the payment of compensation are not available with the LAC Branch and therefore it is not possible to state anything about payment of compensation, the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and has declared that the land acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the amount of compensation was not paid to the land owners.

2.1 Now it is required to be noted that before the High Court it was stated on behalf of the DDA that it released a sum of Rs. 10 crores to the Land and Building Department way back on 28.08.1990 in respect of the land acquired. Therefore, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation was not actually paid to the land owners.

3. The view taken by the High Court 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 been paid. In ot