156 admeasuring 2 bighas, 4 biswas in village Lado Sarai, New Delhi, 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 Department of Land and Building and the Land Acquisition Collector have preferred the present appeal. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
No 960 of 2015, which was also with respect to Khasra No 156 admeasuring 2 bighas, 4 biswas in village Lado Sarai, New Delhi, by which the High Court allowed the said writ petition preferred by the landowners and declared that the acquisition with respect to the said land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the High Court has allowed the present Writ Petition (C)
No 203 of 2015 and has disposed of the same in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition (C)
No 960 of 2015.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
3.3 However, it is the case on behalf of the respondent Nos.1(i) to 1(iv) that the Civil Appeal against the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. (supra) came to be dismissed, the law was not settled, which has ultimately been settled by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and therefore, the decision of this Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) for the purpose of deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both the conditions namely the possession of land has not been taken over and the compensation not paid are required to be satisfied. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled.
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. 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. 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). Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. 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.” 5 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the compensation was not paid to the landowners in view of the fact that there was ownership dispute between the co-owners with respect to compensation.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (C)
No 203 of 2015 declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Case Title: THE SECRETARY THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND BUILDING Vs. ANJEET SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS (2022 INSC 1230)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008196-008196 / 2022
