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) 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 01.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect 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 ‘the Act 2013’), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.

2. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1894) with respect to the land in question was issued as far as back on 10.11.1960 followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 dated 06.01.1969. The award was declared on 31.01.1983. According to the Department and the Land Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit on behalf of the original respondent nos. 1 & 2 before the High Court the possession of the disputed land in question along with the other lands were taken over and handed over to DDA on 04.03.1983. That in the year 2015 the respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the acquisition proceedings including the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and also for a declaration that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have been lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.1 Though it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit before the High Court that the possession of the land was taken on 04.03.1983 and the same was handed over to DDA, without going into the controversy of the physical possession, by the impugned judgment and order and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that the compensation has not been tendered to the land owner, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Hence, the present appeal.

3. As observed hereinabove, it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector before the High Court that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 04.03.1983 and the same was handed over to the DDA. It is required to be noted that the original acquisition is of the year 1960 and the writ petition was preferred challenging the acquisition in the Notification under Sections 4 & 6 after a period of almost 55 years. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has allowed the writ petition relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) observing that the compensation has not been tendered.

3.1 However, as per the recent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 for the purpose of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions of not taking over possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are required to be satisfied. As per the decision in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) the Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically overruled the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitutio