If possession has been taken or compensation has been paid, there is no deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 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 dated 14.03.2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1178 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands 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 and Others have preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even from the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector-GNCTD that the lands in question of Village Molarband were acquired vide Notification under Section 4 dated 04.04.1964, award was declared by the LAC on 19.10.1981 and the possession of the land falling in subject Khasra Nos. 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) was taken on 10.04.1997 after preparing the possession proceeding on the spot and the same was handed over to the beneficiary department, i.e. DDA immediately. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, it was stated as under:

“4. That it is submitted that the lands of village Molarband were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 4.4.1964 which was followed by Notification under section 6 of the said Act vide Notification dated 7.12.1966. That the then Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award bearing No. 1934-D dated 19.10.1981 and the possession of the land falling in subject khasra number 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) was taken on 10.04.1997 after preparing Possession Proceeding on the spot, the same was handed over to the beneficiary department, i.e. DDA immediately. The compensation of the land under reference however could not be paid to the recorded owners and is lying deposited in RD on 30.1.82. It is submitted that the petitioners are also admitting that the government has taken the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land as there is no averment in the writ petition regarding having possession of the petitioners and rather the petitioner has averred that the Government is liable to return the said land to the petitioner on page 19. The petitioners have raised grievance of non-payment of compensation only.”

3. Despite the above and 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, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. No finding is given by the High Court with respect to the case on behalf of the LAC that the possession of the disputed lands in question was taken over on 10.04.1997 and was handed over to the beneficiary department, i.e. DDA immediately. Even from the averment in Para (I) in the writ petition, it was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that the possession of the land comprising of Khasra Nos. 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) is liable to be returned to the petitioners as the entire land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed. Meaning thereby, the original writ petitioners admitted that they were not in possession, otherwise they would not have asked for return of the possession. Be that it may, the LAC had produced on record the possession proceedings, which had sufficient compliance as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129.

4. As observed hereinabove, in the present case, while allowing the writ petition, the High Court has mainly reli