From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and from the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) before the High Court which is reproduced in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment by the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the LAC that out of total land comprised in Khasra No 115 (1-0) possession of 19 biswa was taken but possession of remaining 01 biswa could not be taken due to built up.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 by observing that “even though respondent No.2/LAC claims that possession was taken in respect of the major portion of the land i.e, 19 biswa, there is no categorical statement that payment of compensation was made in accordance with law declared to be applicable i.e., in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra).” 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.
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)
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).
Once the notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued and served upon the original writ petitioner and he was called upon to collect the compensation and thereafter, when he did not come to collect the compensation and then the compensation was sent to the revenue deposit, thereafter it would not be open for the original writ petitioner to contend that as the compensation has not been paid the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.
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) and considering the facts narrated hereinabove and more particularly, when the major portion of the land in question was taken as far as back on 13.04.2009 by drawing possession proceedings which is held to be permissible in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and taking into consideration the fact that the notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued and served upon the original writ petitioner but he did not collect the compensation and therefore, the same was again sent to the revenue deposit, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition in respect of land in question is deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable.
Case Title: GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. DAYANAND (2023 INSC 219)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000481-000481 / 2023
