IMPORTANT POINT
The deposit of compensation in Government Treasury does not constitute non-payment under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, thus acquisition proceedings cannot lapse.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

Heard Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader for the Appellants.

2. The Respondents/Original Petitioners filed W.P.(C)No.1249 of 2014 for a prayer of declaration and consequential order of injunction as regards the lapsing of the subject property as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013).

3. The subject property is land in Re-Sy. Nos.677/11-3 and 677/20-3 of Nattakom Village of Kottayam Sub Registry. According to the Respondents/Original Petitioners, the notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act of 1894) on 9 December 2004. The notification under Section 6 was published on 20 January 2006. Award under Section 11 was declared on 17 November 2007. The Original Petitioners in W.P.(C)No.1249 of 2014 contended that in the light of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, since the award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was made prior to five years and compensation not paid, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.

4. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment dated 31 July 2017 following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [(2014) 3 SCC 183], observed that the deposit of compensation amount in the Government Treasury cannot be accepted as equivalent to the payment provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. In the light of this decision and observing that the amount in the present case was deposited in the Government Treasury, the learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the petition and declare that the acquisition proceedings of the subject property have lapsed. Challenging this order the State is before us in appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the possession of the land has been taken and the only ground on which the acquisition proceedings have been declared as lapsed is because compensation is deposited in the Government Treasury. He submitted that the decision of the learned Single Judge is based on the law laid down in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation which is no longer good law in the light of the decision of the Constitutional Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [(2020) 8 SCC 129]. Therefore when the appeal came up for hearing on 30 October 2024, the following order was passed :

“Heard Mr. V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader. None appears for the Respondents.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge has declared that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject have lapsed in light of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 which held that mere deposit of compensation in Government Treasury cannot be considered as equivalent to payment under Section 24(2) of the Act. The learned Government Pleader points out that thereafter, the issue has been considered by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others [2020 8 SCC 129] and it laid down that if the amount of compensation is deposited in Government Treasury, there cannot be a declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.

3. The Appeal is Admitted.

4. There shall be a stay to the execution and implementation of the impugned order.

5. Post the Appeal for hearing at the end of the admission board on 6 November 2024.”

6. Today also none appears for the Respondents therefore we are proceeded to examine the matter.

7. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the ground for declaring that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed is t