Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
No 2674 of 2017 by which the High Court has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard to the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under 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 Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. 1
On the maintainability of the writ petition, challenge to the land acquisition proceedings by the subsequent purchaser, in the recent decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. 2 Even otherwise, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the compensation was not tendered to the original writ petitioner is unsustainable in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
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proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
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.
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).
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition.
Case Title: GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. MOHD. ZUBAIR (2022 INSC 1247)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008930-008930 / 2022
