SURENDER SINGH & ORS) As pleaded, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was issued on 21.03.2003 seeking to acquire land for Rohini Residential Scheme at Delhi. of NCT of Delhi vs Manav Dharma Trust and another ’s (2017)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/disclosure-and-recovery-of-weapon-a-key-factor-in-conviction/
6 SCC 751 held that petitioner therein had locus to file the writ petition though not being the recorded owner.
The appellant’s stand before the High Court was that the possession of the land was taken on 21.03.2007 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi.
A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed since neither the possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid. VEENA JAIN & ORS.)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/moratorium-application-in-insolvency-case/
From the facts of the case as are available on record, it is evident that vide notification dated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Act large chunk of the land including the land of petitioner comprised in Khasra No.490, measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa situated in revenue estate of village Madan Pur Khadar, New Delhi was sought to be acquired for planned development of Delhi.
The High Court further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation’s case (supra) and held that the acquisition has lapsed as the compensation was not paid to the land owners. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby earlier judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.’s case (supra) was overruled, the orders passed by the High Court, in aforesaid Civil Appeals are liable to be set aside. The High Court has held that compensation having not been paid, as per the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation’s case (supra), the acquisition proceedings lapsed.
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proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.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 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 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/case-type/criminal/legal-analysis-juvenile-justice-act-and-incarceration-period/
It is the undisputed fact on the record, as has been noticed in the impugned orders passed by the High Court in the aforesaid Civil Appeals, the possession of the land was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to Delhi Development Authority.
…………………… J.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SURENDER SINGH (2023 INSC 358)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001548-001548 / 2023
