Bench No.4149 of 2006 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition to the extent of Plot No.219, 1 bigha, 10 biswa and 10 biswansi, Village Malesemau, Tehsil & District Lucknow and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the said land is deemed to have lapsed under Sub-section (2) Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the Lucknow Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/quashing-of-judgement-on-non-registration-of-health-workers/
2 and 3 – Collector and the Lucknow Development Authority filed before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant – Authority that the possession of the land in question was duly taken on 13.02.2003 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and was delivered to the Lucknow Development Authority vide Possession Certificate dated 13.02.2003. Without discussing anything on the possession taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer delivered to the Lucknow Development Authority on 13.02.2003, thereafter the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared the acquisition with respect to the land in question deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation was not tendered/paid to the original land owners under Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 at the time when the Act, 2013 came into force.
As per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decision if one of the conditions is not satisfied, the acquisition proceedings are not deemed to have been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
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/lapse-of-land-acquisition-under-section-242-of-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.
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).
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/deemed-lapse-of-land-acquisition-proceedings-4/
The original writ petition filed before the High Court stands dismissed.
Case Title: LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MEHDI HASAN (DECEASED) THR. LRS. (2022 INSC 1275)
Case Number: C.A. No.-008887-008887 / 2022
