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 dated 29.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 12139 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondent no.1 herein – 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 “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant/LAC before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and others – original respondents that the award with respect to the land in question was declared on 19.06.1992 and the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land was taken on 21.03.2007, out of which the original writ petitioner is claiming 1/12th share. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that the possession was handed over to the DDA after preparing possession proceedings on the spot. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant/LAC that the original writ petitioner is not the recorded owner and the recorded owner never came forward to receive any compensation and hence the same is lying unpaid. Despite the above and even after observing that the land in question was taken over thereafter relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has erred in keeping the question of title of the subject land open to be decided in the appropriate court of jurisdiction, has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed when the compensation had not been paid.

2.1 From the aforesaid, it appears that the title with respect to the land in question in favour of the original writ petitioner was yet to be established. The original petitioner was not the recorded owner. The recorded owner never came forward to receive the compensation and therefore the same was lying unpaid. Therefore, unless and until the right and title of the original writ petitioner was established the High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition.

2.2 Even otherwise on merits also the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. While passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been subsequently specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others reported in (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 Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (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 v. 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