Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C)
No 12145 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent
No 1 herein and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard to the land 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 Govt.
Before the High Court, it was also the specific case on behalf of the department / Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) that the possession of the land in question was taken over by preparing the possession proceedings on 25.01.2000 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). That it is submitted that for the purpose of planned development of Delhi, the answering respondent issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 23.6.1989 which was followed by Notification under Section 6 of the said Act dated 20.06.1990 for planned development of Delhi for the acquisition of the lands falling in village Garhi Mendu. That it is submitted that the petitioners were never entitled to claim any compensation as the recorded owner of the subject land was Gaon Sabha, as such, the assertion by the petitioners that no compensation has been paid to them finds no merits and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, 183 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. 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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
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. Even otherwise, without considering the title of the original writ petitioner in the land in question, when it was the specific case on behalf of the department / LAC that the recorded owner was the Gaon Sabha and the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken over by drawing the possession receipt on the spot, the High Court has committed a very serious error in entertaining the writ petition at the instance of the original writ petitioner and to declare that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Case Title: GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. RATI RAM (2023 INSC 75)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000399-000399 / 2023
