From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the LAC before the High Court and so stated in the counter affidavit filed by the LAC that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 23.09.1989 for planned development of Delhi for the acquisition of the lands falling in Village Ghonda Gujaran Khadar. However, thereafter without even deciding the question of ownership and title of the original writ petitioner and leaving the same open and relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Gyanender Singh & Ors. 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. 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.
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).
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.”
Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and more particularly when the possession of the land in question was taken over by drawing the panchnama and preparing the possession proceedings and the same was handed over to the DDA and that the original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner and therefore there was no question of tendering any compensation to him at the relevant time, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
However, without deciding the ownership and title of the original writ petitioner the High Court has entertained the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein – writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed.
Consequently, the original writ petition filed by respondent no.1 herein – original writ petitioner filed before the High Court stands dismissed.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHYAMO (2023 INSC 70)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000365-000365 / 2023
