For a deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, both conditions regarding possession and compensation must be unsatisfied as per Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal.

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. 3466 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioners- respondents 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 has preferred the present appeal.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that though the High Court has observed and believed the case on behalf of the appellant and the Government of NCT of Delhi that the possession of the land in question was taken over, still, 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 under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that it is not clear as to what compensation was paid and if so, who raised the dispute and whether the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894 were satisfied in accordance with the prevailing procedure. 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 Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others, (2014) 3 SCC 183. However, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another (supra) has been subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129.

2.2 Apart from the above, even in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held that for attracting the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking over of possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the possession of the land in question was taken and handed over to the beneficiary department initially on 27.12.1990 and thereafter the remaining 1 bigha was taken and handed over to the beneficiary department on 09.02.2007. In the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) 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 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 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, ther