Land acquisition proceedings concluded prior to 1.1.2014 do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where possession has been taken and compensation rendered. Acquisition cannot be re-opened for stale claims, and the provision does not authorize the judicial revival of finalized acquisition proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. Ms. Ashwairya Gupta holding brief of Mr. A.J. Yagnik, learned advocate has put in appearance for the petitioners.

2. Mr. R.D. Dave, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 -GIDC is present and would submit that the present petition is liable to be dismissed in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority Vs Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129], inasmuch as, the factual statements made on record would demonstrate that the land acquisition proceedings were brought to its logical end much prior to the enforcement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ 2013) with effect from 01.01.2014

3. The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority (Supra) has rendered a decision on 06.03.2020 overruling Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183] and all other decisions wherein Pune Municipal Corporation (Supra) has been followed. The ratio of the decision in Indore Development Authority (Supra) summarized in Paragraph No. ‘366’ reads as under:-

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.

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 2013 Act 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.

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.

366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court.