The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act in conjunction with Section 31 of the 1894 Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the payment of compensation and the strict adherence to the prescribed procedure for land acquisition.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land of the petitioner i.e. 10 Bigha and 5 Biswa comprised in Khasra 20 (4-12), 22 (3-17) and 36/1 (1-16), situated in the revenue estate of Village Behlolpur, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Subject Land’), has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2013 Act’), as neither the compensation has been paid nor the physical possession has been taken.

2. In this case, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 13.11.1959. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was made on 08.12.1966 and thereafter an Award bearing No. 44/1982-83 was pronounced on 20.10.1982.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that Late Shri Kundan, grand father of the petitioners had constructed a pakka house over 01 Bigha of land comprised in Khasra No. 22 (3-17), where the petitioners are also residing along with their families and rest of the land is lying vacant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. V. Harak Chand Misiri Mal Solanki & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, as neither compensation has been tendered nor the possession has been taken.

5. Counter affidavit has been handed over by learned counsel appearing for the LAC in Court as per which the Statement „A? is not available and as per Naksha Muntazman, the compensation of the subject land could not be paid.

6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.

7. Counter affidavits have been filed by the LAC and DDA in Court. The same are taken on record. Para 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC reads as under:

“4. That it is submitted that the lands of village Behlolpur Khadar were notified vide Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 dated 13.11.1959, which was followed by Notification under Section 6 of the said Act vide Notification dated 08.12.1966 and the then Land Acquisition Collector also passed an Award No. 44/82-83. The actual vacant physical possession of the land measuring 10 Bigha 5 Biswa falling in Khasra Nos. 20 (1-12), 22 (3-17), 36 (1-16) in village Behlol Pur Khadar was duly taken on the spot on 17.09.1996 and handed over to DDA on the spot by preparing possession proceedings. It is however, submitted that as per Nakhsa Muntazamin, the compensation of the subject land could not be paid whereas Statement “A” is not available. the petitioners are not the recorded owners but are claiming through one Kundan who had 2/3rd share in the subject land as per records whereas the petitioners have been claiming the relief of entire land.”

8. Reading of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC makes it is abundantly clear that the compensation was not tendered to the recorded owner or to the interested persons. In view thereof, the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.(supra) wherein it has been held in paras 14 to 20 as under:

“14. Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act enjoins upon the Collector, on making an award under Section 11, to tender payment of compensation to persons interested entitled thereto according to award. It further mandates the Collector to make payment of compensation to them unless prevented by one of the contingencies contemplated in sub-section (2). The contingencies contemplated in Section 31(2) are: (i) the persons interested entitled to compensation do not consent to receive it (ii) there is no person competent to alienate the land and (iii) there is dispute as to the title to receive compensation or as to the apportionment of