The interpretation of Section 24(2) requires both possession and compensation to be considered for deeming land acquisition proceedings as lapsed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 11476 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said 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 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.

3. We have heard Shri Nitin Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Gopal Sankaranarayan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner at length. We have also gone through and considered the averments in the original writ petition as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that though it was the specific case on behalf of the Authority and so stated in the counter that the possession of the land in question was taken on 27.09.2012 and that the original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner and the land absolutely vested in the Gaon Sabha, thereafter the High Court has declared the acquisition with respect to the land in question as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. While passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has heavily relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.

3.2 However, it is required to be noted and even as observed and recorded by the High Court the entire compensation with respect to the land in question was deposited with the Treasury. It is required to be noted that even in the writ petition in paragraph 4 it was stated that in perusal of the award no.09/2008-09, the representatives of the respondents took the possession of the land of the petitioner on 27.09.2012. Even the possession proceeding was also annexed with the writ petition. In light of the aforesaid facts, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring the land acquisition proceedings as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is required to be considered.

3.3 As observed hereinabove and from the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the High Court has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra). The decision of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been subsequently specifically over-ruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus 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 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 afor