IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12546 of 2019 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✔

==========================================================

AMRATLAL DHARAMCHAND SHAH SINCE DECD. THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND REPS & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MANAN A SHAH(5412) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3 MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 02/03/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

The present petition has been filed on 19.07.2019 with the prayers that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject land namely the land bearing Block No. 258, Survey No. 246/2 and Survey No. 240, total admesuring 42,273 sq.mtrs. situated at village Sachin, Taluka Chorasiya, District Surat shall be declared as having been lapsed in view of Section 24 of the the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short ‘Act, 2013’). The petitioners have also prayed for a mandamus restraining the respondents from taking possession of the subject land pending hearing of the writ petition.

2. Pertinent is to note that on the first date of the presentation of the writ petition, by order dated 23.07.2019, the matter has been adjourned sine die noticing that the issue with regard to the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 was subject matter of consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners was, however, directed to file a note on the outcome of the said case.

3. Pertinent is to note that the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court has rendered its decision on 06.03.2020, but no application whatsoever has been filed by the petitioners to place the matter on board. The petition is listed from the cut off today for the first time, as per the listing methodology adopted by this Court.

4. As regards the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the conclusions of the Constitution Bench Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129] are in paragraph No.366.

5. A careful reading of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority (supra) indicates that the correct interpretation of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 was subject matter of reference to the five-Judge Bench of the Apex Court. It was held therein that the word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between the possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of the land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 takes place where due to inaction of the authorities for five years or more prior to the commencement of the said Act (2013 Act), the possession of the acquired land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, but the compensation has not been paid, then there is no lapse. Similarly, if the compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. As far as the provisions of Section 24(1)(b) of the Act, 2013, it is held that where award has been passed within the window of five years excluding the period covered by any interim order of the Court, then the proceedings shall continue as provided under the 1894 Act, as if it has not been repealed. For a case where the award is not made as on 01.01.2014, i.e. the date of commencement of 2013 Act, as per the provisions of Section 24(1)(a), compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the Act, 2013 and there is no l