Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and on going through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that a specific plea was raised before the High Court on the maintainability of the writ petition by the original writ petitioner as he was the subsequent purchaser.
(supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order and overruling the objection raised on behalf of the appellant on the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the respondent
No 1 – original writ petitioner is held to be not a good law in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar and Anr.
(supra) relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled.
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. 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.
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/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ASHA PRAKASH (2023 INSC 69)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000364-000364 / 2023
