By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has declared that the acquisition with regard to the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the compensation in respect of the subject land has not been tendered to the original writ petitioners – respondents herein. Referring to the possession certificate dated 26.05.1998 relied upon on behalf of the appellants (Annexure P/4), learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners has submitted that in the said possession certificate, there is no reference of “taking over of the possession of the subject land” by the LAC from the original writ petitioners – predecessors. It is submitted that therefore the possession so alleged to be taken on 26.05.1998 cannot be said to be lawful possession.
Nothing is on record that at any point of time, the original writ petitioners – predecessors made any grievance that the possession taken over on 26.05.1998 was not lawful.
So far as the submission on behalf of the original writ petitioners that “in the possession certificate dated 26.05.1998, there was no mention of taking over of possession of the subject lands by the Land Acquisition Collector from the original writ petitioners – predecessors” is concerned, mere non-mention of taking over of possession cannot be a ground not to believe the possession certificate in which it is specifically mentioned that the possession of the land in question is handed over to the DDA.
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)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-judgement-on-non-registration-of-health-workers/
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).
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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/land-acquisition-compensation-analysis-of-courts-decision/
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. CHANDERMAL (2022 INSC 1290)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009115-009115 / 2022
