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 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 large chunk of the land including the land of petitioner comprised in Khasra No.1 Etc/57/1 and Khasra No.1 Etc/58/1, situated in revenue estate of village Ghonda, Chauhan Khadar, New Delhi was sought to be acquired for planned development of Delhi. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby earlier judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.’s case (supra) was overruled, the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside.
From the undisputed facts available on record it is evident that in the present case, the possession of land in dispute was taken after the acquisition was complete. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority’s case (supra) had opined that satisfaction of either of the conditions namely either taking possession of the acquired land or payment of compensation to the landowners would be sufficient to save the acquisition from being lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 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proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.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)
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.” The issue as to what is meant by “possession of the land by the State after its acquisition” has also been considered by Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority’s case (supra).
Section 16 of the Act of 1894 provided that possession of land may be taken by the State Government after passing of an award and thereupon land vest free from all encumbrances in the State Government. The act of vesting of the land in the State is with possession, any person retaining the possession, thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser and has no right to possess the land which vests in the State free from all encumbrances.
The Government is not supposed to start residing or to physically occupy it once possession has been taken by drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining possession thereof.
Even if he has retained the possession or otherwise trespassed upon it after possession has been taken by the State, he is a trespasser and such possession of trespasser enures for his benefit and on behalf of the owner.”
It is the undisputed fact on the record, as has been noticed in the impugned order passed by the High Court, the possession of the land was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to Delhi Development Authority.
The Land Acquisition Officer should also take steps to pay the same to the rightful owner.
Case Title: LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THR. SECRETARY Vs. ATTRO DEVI (2023 INSC 357)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002749-002749 / 2023
