IMPORTANT POINT
Ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act are not satisfied in case in hand – There cannot be lapsing of acquisition of land.

JUDGMENT

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This order will dispose of two appeals arising out of order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) No. 12135/2015. One appeal is preferred by Delhi Development Authority whereas the another has been filed by Government of NCT of Delhi.

3. The service on respondent is complete. However, no one appeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing.

4. The facts of the cases are available on record. Vide notification dated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short, ‘the Act’) large chunk of the land measuring about 3,500 Hectares was sought to be acquired for planned development of part of Delhi. It was followed by notification issued on June 20, 1990 under Section 6 of the Act. The Award bearing No. 13/92­93 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (DS), Delhi on 19.06.1992.

5. It is evident from the facts noticed by the High Court in the impugned order that husband of the respondent late Mange Ram was son of late Harkesh. He was father­in­law of the respondent no.1­ writ petitioner. He was claimed to be the recorded owner of 1/12th share [01 bigha and 19 biswas and 03 biswansi] in land bearing Khasra Nos. 281/4(10­11), 282/4 (10­3) and 80(2­8) total area measuring 23 bighas and 2 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Ghari Mandu, Shahdara, Delhi.

6. There is nothing on record to suggest the acquisition in question was ever challenged by the predecessor­in­interest of respondent no.1. The writ petition came to be filed in the year 2015 referring to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the 2013 Act”) claiming that the possession of land having not been taken and the compensation not paid, the acquisition has lapsed.

7. The High Court noticed the fact that the possession of the land had been taken by the State and handed over to the Forest Department for development as green belt, agriculture and water body as the land falls in ‘O’ Zone. It was further pleaded that respondent no.1 was not entitled to receive any compensation as the land, in fact, vested in Gaon Sabha.

8. After considering the arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the High Court, while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 held that the acquisition in question has lapsed qua the land of the respondent no.1 as the compensation therefor had not been tendered. The issue regarding entitlement of compensation to the respondent as there was dispute regarding the title of the land, was kept open.

9. The arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellant are that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby earlier judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.’s case (supra) was overruled the order passed by the High Court is to be set aside. It was opined by the Constitution Bench that compliance to either of the two conditions i.e. taking over of possession of the land or payment of compensation, is good enough to sustain the acquisition. In the case in hand, from the facts admitted on record it is evident that the possession of the land was taken after the acquisition was complete. There was no question of payment of compensation to predecessor in interest of the respondent no.1 as admittedly there was dispute regarding title of the land. The land is recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Even the High Court in the impugned order had kept the question of title open.

10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

11. There is no dispute on the fact that the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another’s case (supra), was relied upon by the High Court to hold that the acquisition in qu