IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – After acquisition of land and passing of award, land vests in State free from all encumbrances – Vesting of land with State is with possession – Any person retaining possession thereafter has to be treated trespasser.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.5339/2016 has been impugned before this Court. Vide aforesaid order, the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent no.1 invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act” ) was allowed and it was opined that acquisition in question has lapsed.

2. The facts of the case as are available on record are that the Respondent no.1 had filed a writ petition stating that she had purchased 100 square yards bearing Khasra No.140/9/1 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Dichaun Kalan Delhi by virtue of sale deed dated 04.03.2005. The said land was subject matter of acquisition. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act” ) was issued on 07.04.2006 which was followed by a Notification under Section 6 of the 1894 on 04.04.2007. The Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 30.12.2008 under Section 11 of the 1894 Act.

3. The writ petition was filed in the year 2016 invoking Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that neither the compensation has been paid to the Respondent no.1 nor the possession of the land had been taken by the acquiring authority, hence, the acquisition lapsed.

4. The stand taken by the Land Acquisition Collector in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court was that the possession of the acquired land was taken on 10.02.2012 except 3 biswas of land on which certain structure had been build up. The Respondent no.1 not being the recorded owner of land, the compensation for the land, including the cases where there was dispute regarding ownership, was deposited with the Reference Court on 27.12.2013.

5. The High Court found that one of the conditions laid down in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having not been complied with regarding payment of compensation to the Respondent no.1, the acquisition has lapsed.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, whereby the earlier judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 was overruled. The order passed by the High Court cannot be legally sustained. It was opined by the Constitution Bench that compliance of either of the two conditions i.e. taking over of possession of the land or payment of compensation is sufficient to sustain the acquisition. In the case in hand, it is the admitted case of the Respondent no.1 that she was not the recorded owner of the land though she claimed that the plot in question was purchased by her vide sale deed dated 04.03.2005. The land is being utilized by the Government for construction of 100 Meter wide Road, under Planned Development of Delhi. The land is required for UER-II, which is connecting NH-1, NH-10 and NH-8 further connecting it to NH-2. The said project is of great public importance and has to be completed before 15 August 2023 in light of Amrit Mahotsav (75 years of Independence). This will help in de-congestion of Delhi and provide better connectivity to the public. As there was dispute regarding ownership, the amount of compensation was deposited with the Reference Court on 27.12.2013. The same will amount to tendering the compensation as in case of dispute of ownerships it could not have been paid to anyone. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Respondent no.1 herself had filed application on 06.05.2009 before the Land Acquisition Collector for release of compensation. She clearly stated therein that though she is not the recorded owner of the land, as she had purchased the same through general power of attorney, the compensation should not be paid to the recorded owner of the plot. This was