From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of the Department that the possession of the subject land has been taken.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/c-a-no-001144-001146-2011/
However, as the land in question was already put to use by the beneficiary Department, the High Court has directed that the original writ petitioner shall be entitled to the compensation under the New 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proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.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 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.
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- Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023 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/civil/c-a-no-003481-003481-2022/
In view of the above and once there shall be no deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the original writ petitioner shall not be entitled to the compensation as per the Act, 2013. The original writ petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein filed before the High Court stands dismissed accordingly.
Case Title: NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI (2023 INSC 339)
Case Number: C.A. No.-001987-001987 / 2023
