1. Today, Mr. Arvind Vashisht, learned Sr. Advocate for the
petitioner argued at length in the light of Section 24 of the Act of
2013 and submits that since the impugned award is not an award
in the eyes of law, therefore, by virtue of Section 24 entire
acquisition proceedings would lapse. He further submits that
impugned award is not award in the eyes of law on two accounts,
firstly, it is a conditional award, since no possession was taken
and secondly, the amount of compensation was put on hold in
anticipation of requirement of certain documents. He also
pointed out that in WPMS No. 156 of 1987 (new number WPMS
No. 1165 of 2001) dispossession was stayed by the High Court on
30.03.1987, however, on 26.02.1992, writ petition was dismissed in
default and consequently, interim order dated 30.03.1987 stands
vacated and subsequently, writ petition was restored pursuant to
direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.01.2024. He
submits that since 26.02.1992 uptil date when the writ petition
was restored, there was no interim order with regard to
dispossession, therefore, respondents were free to take possession
in view of Section 16 read with Section 47 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. Finally, he submits that the conditions, as stipulated
under Section 24 of the Act, are attracted in the present case, since
there is no award and furthermore, no physical possession was
taken, therefore, by efflux of time, acquisition proceedings would
be lapsed and if the Government wants to retain the land, in such
an eventuality, they can initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition
of land in accordance to the provisions of the Act of 2013. In
support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Monohar Lal and others AIR 2020 SC 1496 by
referring paragraph 363, which reads as under:
"363. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
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.
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Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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
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. In response to this, Mr. Karan Anand, learned counsel for
the IMA pointed out that Indian Military Academy still wants to
retain the land for expansion of IMA, which is a very premier
institution of the Army. He submits that petitioner cannot claim
benefit in terms of Section 24 particularly in view of the Section
24 (2) of the Act, since the petitioner already accepted the amount
of compensation and that is the reason he has invoked Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act by moving an application for
enhancement of compensation before the Reference Court,
though the same was dismissed later on for want of prosecution
but no attempt was made by the petitioner to revive the same.
3. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the
State, submits that petitioner in WPMS No. 3782 of 2018 has
himself admitted that he has invoked Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, therefore, he accepts the award which was
declared 23.09.1986 i.e. one day before the last date for passing of
the award. He further pointed out that Section 24 (2) of the Act of
2013 stipulated two conditions either to take possession or to get
compensation, and since the petitioner himself prayed before the
High Court that respondents be restrained from interfering with
the possession of the petitioner over the property in question,
therefore, Section 24 (2) will not attract. He further pointed that
not only this, based on the pleading of paragraph 27, petitioner in
relief (b) prayed that a writ of Mandamus be issued directing the
respondents not to interfere in the possession of the petitioner.
He further submits that petitioner approached the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for restraining the
respondents from interfering with the possession of the
petitioner. He submits that based on the relief, interim order
dated 30.03.1987 was passed by the High Court staying the
dispossession of the petitioner and this stay continued till
26.02.1992, almost for five years. On 26.02.1992, the writ petition
was dismissed in default. Thereafter, on 23.03.1992, restoration
application was moved, which is reflected from order of Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 29.01.2024 and subsequently, a Civil Misc.
Application No. 34664 of 1999 was also moved with a prayer to
take up restoration application dated 23.03.1992 but thereafter
matter was not pursued and in the meantime, State of
Uttarakhand was carved out and the matter was transferred to
Uttarakhand High Court and the Division Bench of this Court on
20.11.2001 dismissed the restoration application and thereafter,
the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.01.2024 relegated the matter back
to the High Court with a direction to restore the writ petition and
decide the same on its merits. He further pointed out that since
the restoration application was pending and on earlier occasion
interim order was passed, which was continued for almost five
years, therefore, respondents have not made any attempt to take
possession from the petitioner, since the restoration application
was pending since 23.03.1992. He further pointed out that since
the writ petition was restored pursuant to the order of Hon'ble
Supreme Court's, therefore, order 30.03.1987 would automatically
revive.
4. All these aspect requires deliberations.
5. Parties have advanced their arguments at length.
Admittedly, as on date, petitioner is in possession, though, the
petitioner has taken compensation, however, later on, he returned
the compensation, but the same has been denied by Mr. Pradeep
Hairiya, learned State Counsel.
6. Let Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned State Counsel and Mr.
Karan Anand, learned Counsel for the IMA may get instructions
whether they are ready to give compensation at the circle rate.
7. List on 23.12.2025.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
16.12.2025
SKS
