From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant/LAC before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and others – original respondents that the award with respect to the land in question was declared on 19.06.1992 and the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land was taken on 21.03.2007, out of which the original writ petitioner is claiming 1/12 share. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant/LAC that the original writ petitioner is not the recorded owner and the recorded owner never came forward to receive any compensation and hence the same is lying unpaid.
While passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn.
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. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
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.
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).
The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
In view of the above and applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Case Title: GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. BHAGRATI (2023 INSC 38)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000279-000279 / 2023
