By placing reliance on the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, the Apex Court in the present case opined that the High Court was incorrect to observe that the acquisition proceedings were lapsed under sub- section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the amount of compensation was not paid to the Court but to the Treasury, the Court in pursuance of the same stated that in the aforesaid precedent it was explicitly observed that the expression paid in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court.
A Division Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarthana were of the opinion that in the instant case compensation amount was deposited with the Treasury and even the possession was already taken over on September 7, 200, thus the proceedings cannot be said to have been lapsed under sub- section (2) of Section24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Hence, the appeal instituted by the original petitioners against the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition preferred original petitioners and held that the acquisition proceedings in respect to the three plots in question pertaining to original writ petitioners stand lapsed under sub- section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 was allowed.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated July 19, 2017 passed by the High Court of Allahabad whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition preferred original petitioners and held that the acquisition proceedings in respect to the three plots in question pertaining to original writ petitioners stand lapsed under sub- section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Hence, the Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority preferred the present appeal.
After hearing the submissions of the parties, the Court noted that the High Court held that acquisition proceedings with respect to the three plots in question shall stand lapsed under sub section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that, though the deposit was made in the Treasury, but the same was not deposited in the Court and consequently the payment of compensation of amount was not made to the land owners.
To refute the findings of the High Court, the Apex Court relied on the judgment of this Court on the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, wherein it was observed that 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 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.
Thus, applying the law laid in the aforesaid precedent, the Court submitted that in the instant case the compensation amount was deposited with the Treasury and even the possession was already taken over on September 7, 2005. Therefore, the observation made by the High Court stating that the acquisition proceedings with respect to lands in question were deemed to have been lapsed, were quashed and set aside by this Court.
In light of the above stated observations, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court was quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Case name: AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. Vs. RAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS.
Picture Source :
