Point of Law: Land acquisition - No notice was issued to the writ petitioners before compensation amount was deposited by way of revenue deposit, the same would not result in compensation being payable in terms of the Act of 2013.

JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. W.A.No.172 of 2019 is preferred against a judgment and order dated 29.04.2014 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.24548 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, allowed the writ petition holding and directing as follows:

“7. In the instant case also though the Sub-Collectorcum-Land Acquisition Officer passed award as long back as on 23.12.2006, as per the said award the authorities kept the compensation amount in revenue deposit. In view of the mandatory provisions of the new legislation 2013 and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment, such revenue deposit would not amount to payment of amount of compensation to the petitioner and in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned proceedings, which culminated in the award dated 23.12.2006 cannot stand for judicial scrutiny, and the same are liable to be invalidated

8.For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgment, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings, which culminated in passing of award by the SubCollector, Gudur-cum-Land Acquisition Officer vide proceedings Rc.No.A 2688/2006 (Award No.34/2007-07) are hereby quashed.

However, it is open for the respondent-authorities to initiate fresh proceedings, if they choose to do so, for acquiring the land. No order as to costs. As a sequel, W.P.M.Ps. if any shall stand closed.”

2. W.A.No.167 of 2019 is preferred against a judgment and order dated 29.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.24547 of 2006, disposing of the writ petition in similar terms as in W.P.No.24548 of 2006.

3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in both the writ petitions is same and for the purpose of disposal of the appeals, they are relying on the factual matrix as presented in W.P.No.24548 of 2006.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that the District Collector, Nellore, had issued a Notification No.RCG5/4109/2006 dated 22.07.2006 for acquisition of lands for constructing an Industrial Park by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation. The Notification included the writ petitioner’s lands admeasuring Ac.4.26 cents in Sy.No.318/1 and Ac.0.81 cents in Sy.No.331/13-A of Menakur Village, Nayudupet Mandal, Nellore District. The plea put forward was that public purpose involved in the Notification is too remote in nature.

5. Mr. J. Ugranarasimha, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the learned single Judge, following the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation(supra), had, in essence, opined that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed on account of non-payment of compensation to the writ petitioners. However, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation(supra) was overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others, reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, and, therefore, the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained in law. He has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraphs 231, 232, 365 and 366 of the judgment in Indore Development Authority(supra) and contends that deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’) takes place only when an award under Section 11 of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’) was made five years or more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 but possession of the land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. But, in the instant case, there is no dispute that possession has been taken and that apart, compensation has also been paid and, therefore