The application of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded proceedings but applies to pending proceedings as on its enforcement date.

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. 5053 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and has declared that the 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 Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.

2. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 27.06.1996. The Award was also passed vide Award dated 22.06.1999. According to the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and as per the counter affidavit filed by the LAC before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the original respondents that the actual vacant peaceful possession of the subject land falling in Khasra No. 759(4-16) was taken on 31.12.2013 in which the original writ petitioner is having 1/4th joint share, i.e., admeasuring 1 bigha on the spot and handed over to the requisition agency by preparing proper possession proceedings on the spot. Despite the above and without further commenting upon the taking over of the possession, thereafter, 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 on the ground that the compensation has not been paid/tendered to the original writ petitioner. However, as observed hereinabove, the High Court has not disputed and/or taken into consideration the taking over of the possession by the LAC and handing over to the beneficiary by drawing the panchnama on the spot on 31.12.2013.

3. The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the decision of the Constitution bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:-

“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 other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31