In the present case, the lands of village Chowkri Mubarakbad were acquired vide Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 dated 13.11.1959. 2.1
That the private respondents herein – original writ petitioners approached the High Court by way of present writ petition for a declaration that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. (6- 10): It is submitted that in W.P.(C) 9333/2014 pursuance of the Award, stated supra, the answering respondent has duly taken the actual vacant physical possession of the subject land falling in khasra number 165 (12-19) on 1.5.1964 and handed over the requisition agency. ADJ and thereafter deposited in Treasury vide cheque number 394710 dated 10.3.1967.”
3 Despite the above, the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed as the assessed compensation was never paid to the original owners – Bodey Singh or his acknowledged successor-in-interest – Panna Lal and instead the same was deposited sometime in the year 1967 with the Treasury.
1
From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has not accepted the case on behalf of the appellant that the actual vacant physical possession of the land in question was taken over solely on the ground that the land is vacant and the vacant portions in fact have been mortgaged and who constructed the boundary wall, which cannot be recited in the present proceedings.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
Against which, it was the specific case on behalf of the Government of NCT of Delhi that the possession of the land in question was taken over in the year 1964 and handed over to the requisition agency. 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.
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)
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/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
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. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the High Court has committed a very serious error in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question, which such was acquired in the year 1959 is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Case Title: NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER Vs. RAM CHNADER SINGH (2023 INSC 107)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000733-000733 / 2023
