No lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) if compensation paid despite no possession; 30-year delay perfects adverse possession title, barring enforcement.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

The present set of appeals are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge whereby 10 writ petitions lead case whereof was CWP No. 85 of 2008, titled as Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) & Anr. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., filed by the present appellants, were dismissed on 22.09.2016.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by placing reliance upon Section 24 of The RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT , 2013, which came into force on 01.01.2014, by holding that since the award had been passed on 08.07.1966 under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, but the possession had not been taken, therefore, by virtue of Section 24 (2) of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 2013 the proceedings as such had lapsed by application of law as one of the conditions in the said proviso had not been fulfilled.

3. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Velaxan Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 325; The Working Friends Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. vs. The State of Punjab & Ors. JT 2015 (9) SC 357; Pawan Kumar Aggarwal vs. State of Punjab & Ors. JT 2016 (4) SC 178; DDA vs. Raman Grover & Ors. JT 2016(5) SC 196; Shashi Gupta & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. JT 2016 (5) SC 196 and Delhi Development Authority vs. Reena Suri & Ors. JT 2016 (5) SC 291, and it was accordingly held that once the Apex Court as such had decided the legal issue and the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 was replaced with RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT , 2013, the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act came to the rescue of the private respondents and resultantly interference was not done in the orders passed by the Collector on 28.05.2007, 18.06.2007 and 16.11.2010.

4. Counsel for the appellants has argued on the strength of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manohar Lal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, that subsequently the judgment in Velaxan Kumar’s case (supra) was specifically over-ruled and it has been held that compensation if has been deposited, then there is no lapse of proceedings and both the conditions have to be satisfied and the word ‘or’ has to be read as ‘and’ and not ‘or’ and the twin requirements are cumulative and conjunctive in nature.

5. Reliance can be placed upon paragraph 366.3, wherein it has been specifically held that if compensation has been paid and the possession has not been taken, then there is no lapse. The said paragraph reads as under:-

“366.3 The word ‘or’ used in Section 24 (2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.”

6. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge as such is not liable to be sustained since the