At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case and even as observed by the High Court, the possession of the land in question was taken over in the year 2005, however, observing that as the compensation has not been paid and/or tendered to the recorded owners / petitioners, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has been subsequently overruled by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn.
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. 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proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.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).
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
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.
From the material on record, it appears that even according to the original writ petitioner, she acquired the right in the land in question pursuant to the Agreement to Sell dated 09.05.2005.
2 Under the circumstances also, the High Court has erred in entertaining the writ petition at the instance of the original writ petitioner being subsequent purchaser, praying for a declaration that the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ASHA JAIN (2022 INSC 1190)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008088-008088 / 2022
