A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) was issued on 25.11.1980, which was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 issued vide notification / declaration dated 07.06.1985. 2
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-high-court-judgment-on-land-acquisition-proceedings/
It appears that after the pronouncement of the judgment in Gurdeep Singh Uban (supra) sometimes in August, 1999, few of the landowners again filed writ petitions challenging therein the acquisition proceedings.
The judgment and order passed by the High Court in the case of Gurdeep Singh Uban (supra) dated 19.05.2005 was challenged by the landowners before this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (C) No 26537 of 2005.
By the impugned judgment and order, though, the High Court has specifically noted that the compensation has been deposited with the Court, but the possession of the land in question is not taken over and relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Gyanender Singh Vs.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/final-decision-and-disclosure-in-collegium-meetings/
It is submitted that in the present case and even as noted by the High Court, the compensation with respect to the land in question was deposited in the Court. It is submitted that even as mentioned in the counter filed on behalf of the appellant, the possession of the land in question was not taken over. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Collector has failed to disclose whether the respondent No 1 was offered compensation by the land Acquisition Collector at any point of time and whether it was paid to him or not. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that though it was the case on behalf of the authority that the compensation was deposited in the Court, thereafter, the High Court has declared that the acquisition deemed to be lapsed by observing that the question of compensation lying deposited in the Court only arise in a case where possession has been taken over. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn.
Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. 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.
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). 2 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent No 1 – original writ petitioner that the decision of the High Court in the case of Gyanender Singh (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order, against which, special leave petition has been dismissed by this Court is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that at the relevant time when the appeal was dismissed by this Court, the issue was not settled, which has been settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). Therefore, when the acquisition proceedings were the subject matter of litigation and because of that the authority could not take the possession of the lands in question and as such not taking over the possession cannot be in favour of the landowners, more particularly, when the acquisition proceedings have been appealed upto this Court.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Case Title: LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) Vs. SURESH B. KAPUR (2022 INSC 1245)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008197-008197 / 2022
