Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C)
No 3383 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent
No 1 herein and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal. It was also the case on behalf of the DDA that the land measuring area 457 Bigha 08 Biswa, Village Pehladpur Bangar is in possession of the DDA but the remaining area is in illegal occupation in the nature of residential houses, factories, Katha Jat along with boundary wall and the steps are taken by the DDA to remove them but on and off the land grabbers encroach upon the DDA land.
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proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.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 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.
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.”
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
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 the stand taken by the DDA in the counter filed before the High Court, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. NARVADA DEVI (2023 INSC 110)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000735-000735 / 2023
