Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/land-acquisition-compensation-analysis-of-courts-decision/
No 4952 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and has declared that the acquisition with respect 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. 1 and 2 approached the High Court by way of present writ petition and prayed that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, it is required to be noted that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants and as so mentioned in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court that the possession of the land in question was taken over and handed over to the DDA on 22.09.1986, and, therefore, the alleged possession of the acquired land and the status of the original writ petitioners are nothing but one having illegal possession and unlawful encroachment on the Government land.
2
The view taken by the High Court relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/deemed-lapse-of-land-acquisition-proceedings-4/
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 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. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings.
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. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non- deposit of compensation in court. 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). 4952 of 2015 declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Case Title: GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. RAM PRAKASH SEHRAWAT (2022 INSC 1291)
Case Number: C.A. No.-009201-009201 / 2022
