JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals as common questions of law and fact are involved. The facts of the cases have been noticed separately.

FACTS:

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1548 OF 2023 (DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SURENDER SINGH & ORS)

2. As pleaded, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was issued on 21.03.2003 seeking to acquire land for Rohini Residential Scheme at Delhi. On 19.3.2004, Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award under Section 11 of the Act assessing compensation for the acquired land on 12.7.2005. The compensation amount of Rs. 80,40,76,004/- for the acquisition of the land was deposited by the State with the Land Acquisition Collector.

3. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “2013 Act”) claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed since neither possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid. The definite stand of the State before the High Court was that the possession of the land was taken on 31.08.2005 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. The title of the writ petitioners was in dispute. Hence, the compensation could not be paid to them. It was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector. The High Court after relying upon the judgment of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust and another’s (2017) 6 SCC 751 held that petitioner therein had locus to file the writ petition though not being the recorded owner. It further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and held that the acquisition has lapsed as the compensation had not been paid to the land owners. Though, the issue of title of the land was left open.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1572 OF 2023 (DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. RAM SINGH & ORS.)

4. From the facts as are available on record, it is evident that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.09.1989 proposing to acquire the land situated in the revenue estate of village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Shahdra, Delhi, for the purpose of planned development of Delhi. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 20.06.1990 and award bearing no. 8/92-93 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 19.06.1992.

5. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed as neither possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid. The appellant’s stand before the High Court was that the possession of the land was taken on 21.03.2007 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. The compensation could not be paid to the land owners as they never claimed the same.

6. The High Court relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation’s case (supra) held that the acquisition has lapsed as the compensation was not paid to the land owners.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1549 OF 2023 (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR. VS. GYAN CHAND & ORS.)

7. From the facts as are available on record, it is evident that notification under Section 4 of Act seeking to acquire the land situated in revenue estate of villages Tughlakabad, Delhi, was issued on 25.01.1965. The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 13.02.1969. The award bearing No. 50-A/1969-70 for the same was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 04.11.1981.

8. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed since neither the possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid. The appellant’s stand before