The division judge bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh of the apex court in the case of Lucknow development authority vs Mehdi Hasan (deceased) Thr. LRs. & Ors held that non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the said land is deemed to have lapsed under Sub-section (2)of 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.
COURT'S OBSERVATION
The hon'ble court held that once the possession was taken much prior to Act 2013 came into force. As per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), it cannot be said that the land proceedings are deemed to have lapsed. As per the law laid down by this Court to attract Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions of not taking possession and not tendering/payment of compensation are required to be satisfied. 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. 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.
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. The decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside.
CASE NAME- Lucknow development authority vs Mehdi Hasan (deceased) Thr. LRs. & Ors
CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8887 OF 2022
CORUM- Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh
DATE- 12.12.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
