Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 regarding deemed lapse due to non-payment or non-possession.

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. 6478 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein 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 (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.

2. In the present case, the land in question was acquired in the year 1964 and the award was declared in the year 1967. According to the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and so stated in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, the possession of the land in question was taken over in the year 1967 by drawing the panchnama. The compensation with respect to the land in question was duly deposited with the Reference Court in the year 1967 itself. That thereafter the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein – original writ petitioners filed the writ petition before the High Court in the year 2017 and prayed to declare that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensation was not actually tendered/paid to the landowners. Relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Smt. Harbans Kaur Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. [W.P.(C) 5358 of 2014, decided on 02.02.2015], in which after 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, it was held that the depositing of the amount of compensation with the Reference Court cannot be regarded as compensation having been paid to the landowners and the High Court by the impugned judgment and order has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed as actual physical possession of the subject land has not been taken over by the land acquiring agency. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.

4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that according to the LAC, the amount of compensation was deposited with the Reference Court in the year 1967. Even the possession of the land in question was taken over by drawing the panchnama, which is a permissible mode as observed and held by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.

4.1 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that while deciding the case of Smt. Harbans Kaur (supra), the High Court has relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr (supra). However, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (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]