Once possession is taken, there shall be no deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3164 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no. 1 herein-original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect 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 ‘the Act 2013’) the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even as per the finding recorded by the High Court in Para 3, the physical possession of the subject land was admittedly taken on 16.07.2007. However, thereafter 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 on the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the original petitioner, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed.

2.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that 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 has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. In the said decision it is specifically observed and held that once the possession was taken over there shall not be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

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 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 no