The court established that for an acquisition to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession must be proven.

ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single judge dated 27.10.2021 dismissing the writ petition No.5780/2018 filed by the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is owner of land bearing Khasra No.433 of Village Karoli, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar (Rajasthan). This land along with other neighboring land was subject matter of acquisition by RIICO for which a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1894') was issued on 23.09.1997 and published in official gazette on 04.10.1997. The acquisition proceedings proceeded further thereafter. After completing various steps envisaged under the Act of 1894, an award was passed by the land acquisition officer under Section 11 of the Act on 12.01.2001. According to the department the majority of the land owners accepted the compensation. The petitioner and some other persons did not. Thereupon the compensation was deposited before the reference court on 14.11.2008 and possession of the acquired land was taken from the petitioner and other similarly situated occupants on 24.12.2008. The petitioner approached the learned single judge contending that neither compensation was paid for the land supposedly acquired nor possession was taken from the petitioner. In that view of the matter, according to the petitioner, in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to be as 'the said Act of 2013'), the acquisition under the old Act of 1894 would lapse.

3. Before the learned single judge the respondents appeared and filed its reply contending that the notification under Section 4(1) was published on 04.10.1997 which was also affixed at conspicuous places near acquired land on 18.12.1997. The objections received in response to such notifications were disposed of by the competent authority after which Section 6 notification was published on 24/26.12.1998 in the official gazette. The same was also published in the local newspapers and affixed at conspicuous places in the neighborhood. Finally the award was passed by the land acquisition officer on 12.01.2001. Pursuant to the award majority of the land owners accepted the compensation on or around 19.03.2001. Compensation payable to the rest of the claimants was deposited before the reference court on 14.11.2008 and possession was taken over by drawing a punchnama on 24.12.2008 by RIICO. The petition which was filed in the year 2018 thus was grossly belated.

4. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition relying heavily on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 against which present appeal has been filed.

5. Along with the appeal the petitioner has also filed an application for taking additional documents on record. These documents principally are in the nature of photographs which the petitioner contends relate to the site in question. Firstly there is no reason cited why such documents were not produced in the writ petition. Secondly in any case photographs cannot establish the factum of possession legally having been taken over or not. The request for bringing the additional documents on record is therefore refused. The application is dismissed.

6. Coming to the correctness of the order passed by the learned single judge, we notice that the issues sought to be raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition and thereafter in this appeal are substantially covered by the decision of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). Referring to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, it was held that the consequence of lapsing of the acquisition under the Act of 1894 would arise only when both the conditions of non-payment of compensation as well as possessi