Possession not being taken due to a court stay does not entitle the landowner to claim benefit under Section 24(2) of Act 2013.

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. 609 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 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 is evident that before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and so stated in the counter affidavit in paragraph 8 that since the Hon’ble High Court had granted stay against dispossession, therefore, the possession of the land in question was not taken, however, the compensation with respect to the land in question was sent in RD. Despite the above, relying 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, 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. However, in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, this Court has subsequently overruled the earlier 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.

2.2 In the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held that if the possession could not be taken by the acquiring body/beneficiary due to the stay of the Court, the period of stay is to be excluded. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that once having obtained the stay against the dispossession and due to which the acquiring body/beneficiary could not have taken the possession, thereafter, it is not open for the landowner to contend that as the possession is not taken, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.3 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, 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 w