Non-payment or non-deposit of compensation does not lead to a lapse if possession has been taken or if compensation has been paid.

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 dated 13.02.2017 in Writ Petition (C) No. 8685 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondent herein and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of 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 even from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant and others before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and other original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on 21.03.2007. In paragraphs 6 and 7 in the counter affidavit, it was stated as under:

“6. That as per the record, the land in question, i.e. Khasra No. 17(4-12), 18(3-14), 38(1-12), 41(1-16), 42(1-10) admeasuring 13 bighas 04 biswa (petitioner is having 1/12th share) situated at the revenue estate of village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Delhi, was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23.09.1989 followed by declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act on 20.06.1990 for Planned Development of Delhi. In pursuance of said notification, notices under section 9 and 10 as provided under the Act, were issued to the interested persons, inviting the claims from all the interested persons and claims were also filed by the interested persons including the predecessors in interest of the present petitioners with respect to the above said land in question. The then Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No. 8/92-93 dated 19.06.1992 after considering the claims of the claimants. It is pertinent to mention here that the bearing Khasra No. 861/639(1-15) is not acquired.

7. That the possession of the land in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 21.03.2007. However, the compensation amount is not paid to the recorded owner.”

3. However, thereafter, without taking into consideration the factum of taking the possession of the land in question and handing over the same to the beneficiary, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court 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 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 183 and other decisions and solely on the ground that the compensation with respect to the land in question is not tendered.

4. However, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has been specifically overruled by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. 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 Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183, is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183, has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (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 vs. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412, the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be