Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No 5664 of 2014, by which, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land(s) in question 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 Delhi Development Authority have preferred the present appeals.
2 However, without taking into consideration the fact that possession of the lands in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 23.09.1981, the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order has declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed to the extent of original writ petitioners share, as it appears from the counter affidavit that it cannot be clearly ascertained as to whether compensation in accordance with law was tendered to the land owners. 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proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.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)
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).
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
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.”
4 Thus, as per the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) for attracting Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking possession and not tendering compensation have to be satisfied. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (C)
No 5664/2014 declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed, is hereby quashed and set aside.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. OM PRAKASH (2023 INSC 71)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000423-000423 / 2023
