From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that though in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court filed by the Land Acquisition Collector it was stated that the possession was taken on 19.01.2006.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/dispute-over-back-wages-high-court-sets-aside-order-of-cgit/
Therefore, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation was not actually paid to the land owners. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, 183 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.
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/supreme-court/challenge-to-dismissal-of-revision-application-in-criminal-case/
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.
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/supreme-court/lapse-of-land-acquisition-under-section-242-of-the-act-2013/
In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJ SINGH (2022 INSC 1268)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008993-008993 / 2022
