Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and para 5, it appears that the original writ petitioners being the subsequent purchasers of the land in question they do not derive any right or title to the land at the time of Award and thereafter cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings.
However, thereafter and despite the above and without even considering the locus of the original writ petitioners to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition, solely relying upon the fact that the possession has not been taken over and the compensation is not paid and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. In that view of the matter the High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners – subsequent purchasers and declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed.
Before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant that the possession could not be taken over due to the pending litigation initiated by the original land owners challenging the acquisition which ended upto this Court. 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proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
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).
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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
No costs.
Case Title: GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. SUNIL JAIN (2023 INSC 39)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000280-000280 / 2023
