With effect from 1 January 2014, the 1894 Act was repealed and the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the 2013 Act’) were brought into force. , the High Court held that sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act will apply as the compensation has not been paid to the first respondent although physical possession of the acquired land has been taken over by the appellant. The Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority interpreted sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” (emphasis added) 5.
The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/extension-of-benefit-of-doubt-in-criminal-convictions/
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.
In the present case, as recorded in the impugned judgment, there is no dispute that the possession of the acquired land was taken over on 19 January 2006. Therefore, in terms of the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority, sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act will have no application even though the compensation has not been paid. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the acquired land has already been put to use for public purposes.
He submitted that it is well settled that the Courts cannot adopt a different approach while dealing with the applications for condonation of delay made by the State or its agencies and instrumentalities and that they should be treated on par with other litigants. He submitted that in view of the policy and since the acquired land has been already utilised for public purposes, the direction of the High Court in the impugned judgment to pay compensation to the first respondent in accordance with the 2013 Act, needs to be upheld.
Thus, when the Writ Petition was filed invoking sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the acquired land was already put to use for an important public purpose of the metro depot. In a case where the land was not put to use for a public purpose, the approach of this Court while deciding the application for condonation of a long delay in such a case would have been different. Once it is held that the acquisition under the 1894 Act continues to be valid, the first respondent is disentitled to claim compensation payable in terms of the 2013 Act which was not applicable to the acquisition. We direct the appellant to pay costs quantified at 50,000/- to the first respondent within a period of one month from today; d.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/vicarious-liability-under-section-34-of-ipc/
If the compensation determined as per the Award made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has not been yet paid till date, the appellant and /or the second respondent shall pay the same to the first respondent in the manner provided in clause (d) as above within a period of one month from today.
Case Title: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. JAGAN SINGH (2023 INSC 620)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004335-004335 / 2023
