IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Where actual physical possession of land is not capable of being taken due to illegal occupation by encroachers, there will be no lapsing of acquisition proceedings.

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. 3383 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 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 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.

2. Before the High Court, the respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner claimed the relief for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings pertaining to land measuring 504 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 49/14 situated in the area of Village Pehladpur Bangar, National Capital Territory of Delhi are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as neither physical possession of the subject land has been taken nor the compensation has been tendered to the petitioner.

2.1 Before the High Court and so stated in the counter affidavit, it was the case on behalf of the appellant-DDA that as such the payment of compensation in respect of the award amounting to Rs. 80,40,76,004/- was released to L&B Department, GNCTD by cheque dated 09.08.2005. It was also the case on behalf of the DDA that the land measuring area 457 Bigha 08 Biswa, Village Pehladpur Bangar is in possession of the DDA but the remaining area is in illegal occupation in the nature of residential houses, factories, Katha Jat along with boundary wall and the steps are taken by the DDA to remove them but on and off the land grabbers encroach upon the DDA land. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant-DDA that so far as the original writ petitioner is concerned, he has encroached on the Government land claiming himself to be the owner.

2.2 Despite the above and without appreciating the reasons for not taking the actual vacant possession of the remaining land, though as per the possession proceedings dated 31.08.2005, physical possession of the land measuring 457 Bigha was taken over and handed over to the DDA, 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.

3. The view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (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