Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, where possession of the acquired land was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department, can the acquisition still be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) because compensation was not tendered?

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s.24(2) — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.4 — Deemed lapse of acquisition — Twin conditions — Possession taken over — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s.24(2) — Deemed lapse — Twin conditions — Held: A deemed lapse under Section 24(2) is attracted only where twin conditions are satisfied — possession not taken and compensation not tendered; if one of them fails, there is no lapse. (¶2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s.24(2) — Possession handed over — Belated grievance — Held further: Possession taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department defeats a lapse, though payment of compensation could not be ascertained. Appeal allowed. (¶2, 3)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

2.1 That after a period of approximately 24 years, from the date of passing of the Award and on the Act, 2013 coming into force, to take the benefit of the said Act, the respondent(s) herein – original writ petitioners filed the writ petition(s) before the High Court in the year 2014, for declaration that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, contending, inter-alia, that full compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not tendered.

2.2 However, without taking into consideration the fact that possession of the lands in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 23.09.1981, the High Court, by the impugned judgment and order has declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed to the extent of original writ petitioners share, as it appears from the counter affidavit that it cannot be clearly ascertained as to whether compensation in accordance with law was tendered to the land owners.

2.3 The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under: -

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under: 366.1. 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. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed. 366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. 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 other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse. 366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. 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. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. 366.5. 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. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b). 366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. 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). 366.8. 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. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. 366.9. 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. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”

2.4 Thus, as per the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) for attracting Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking possession and not tendering compensation have to be satisfied. It is observed and held that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.5 Even otherwise, the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the grievance with respect to not tendering the full compensation was made for the first time in the year 2014 i.e., after a period of 24 years from the date of passing of the Award and it was the specific case on behalf of the department that payment of compensation with respect to the lands could not be ascertained due to torn condition of Naksha Muntzamin. Nothing is on record to demonstrate that at any point of time till the writ petition was filed before the High Court, any grievance was made with respect to non-tendering of the full compensation. Be that as it may, fact remains that possession of the lands in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 23.09.1981. Under the circumstances, applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.