IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Once possession of subject land was taken over and in fact was put to use prior to 2013 Act came into force, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 12143 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the subject land 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”) however the High Court has observed and held that the original writ petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the Act, 2013, the Land and Building Department of the NCT of Delhi and others have preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of the Department that the possession of the subject land has been taken. 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, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, as the land in question was already put to use by the beneficiary Department, the High Court has directed that the original writ petitioner shall be entitled to the compensation under the New Act.

2.1 Thus, even the High Court has accepted that the possession of the land in question was already taken over and even the land was put to use by the Department. Even the original writ petitioner also admitted the same and therefore prayed that he be paid the compensation under the Act, 2013. Once the possession of the subject land was taken over and in fact was put to use prior to 2013 Act came into force, as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition. In paragraph 366 it is 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 of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not b