Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/dispute-over-back-wages-high-court-sets-aside-order-of-cgit/
No 3357 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as such the original writ petitioner is the subsequent purchaser and the maintainability of the writ petition at his instance was raised before the High Court, however, the High Court has overruled the said petition relying upon the decision in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi)
Vs.
In that view of the matter, the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser had no locus to file the writ petition to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. 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proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/challenge-to-dismissal-of-revision-application-in-criminal-case/
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 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. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/lapse-of-land-acquisition-under-section-242-of-the-act-2013/
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DAYANAND (2022 INSC 1269)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009005-009005 / 2022
