LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MEHDI HASAN (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS. on 12 December 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 03.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad, Lucknow Bench in Misc. Bench No.4149 of 2006 by whichthe High Court has allowed the said writ petition to the extent of PlotNo.219, 1 bigha, 10 biswa and 10 biswansi, Village Malesemau, Tehsil& District Lucknow and has declared that the acquisition with respectto the said land is deemed to have lapsed under Sub-section (2) of Section24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafterreferred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the Lucknow Development Authority haspreferred the present appeal.

2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties including Shri R. Basant, learned Senior Advocateappearing on behalf of the subsequent purchasers and having consideredthe decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development AuthorityVs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 and as it is reportedthat the possession of the land in question was already taken over in2003, delay caused in preferring the appeal condoned which as suchwas already condoned vide earlier order dated 25.11.2022.

3. Before the High Court the original writ petitioners questionedthe acquisition proceedings in relation to separate plots of land belongingto them, however during pendency of the writ petition an applicationwas filed in the writ petition restricted to the plot no.219 only area1bigha, 10 biswa and 10 biswansi of village Malesemau, Tehsil & DistrictLucknow.

3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt and even taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed onbehalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 - Collector and the Lucknow A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

ADevelopment Authority filed before the High Court, it appears that itwas the specific case on behalf of the appellant - Authority that thepossession of the land in question was duly taken on 13.02.2003 by theSpecial Land Acquisition Officer and was delivered to the LucknowDevelopment Authority vide Possession Certificate dated 13.02.2003. Itwas also stated that the compensation has now been deposited in theBCourt of District Judge under Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. Without discussing anything on the possession taken by the SpecialLand Acquisition Officer delivered to the Lucknow DevelopmentAuthority on 13.02.2003, thereafter the High Court has allowed the writpetition and has declared the acquisition with respect to the land in questionCdeemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely onthe ground that the compensation was not tendered/paid to the originalland owners under Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 atthe time when the Act, 2013 came into force. However, the fact remainsthat the possession of the land in question as per the Land AcquisitionOfficer and the Lucknow Development Authority was duly taken onD13.02.2003 and was delivered to the Lucknow Development Authorityon 13.02.2003 itself. That once the possession was taken much prior toAct 2013 came into force. As per the law laid down by this Court in thecase of Indore Development Authority (supra), it cannot be said thatthe land proceedings are deemed to have lapsed. As per the law laidEdown by this Court to attract Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditionsof not taking possession and not tendering/payment of compensation arerequired to be satisfied. As per the law laid down by this Court in theaforesaid decision if one of the conditions is not satisfied, the acquisitionproceedings are not deemed to have been lapsed under Section 24(2) ofthe Act, 2013.F

3.2 In paragraph366 the Constitution Bench of this Court hasobserved and held as under:-

366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer thequestions as under:

G366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case theaward is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement ofthe 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation hasto be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2. In case the award has been passed within the windowHperiod of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as providedunder Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if ithas not been repealed.

366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possessionand compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemedlapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for fiveyears or more prior to commencement of the said Act, thepossession of land has not been taken nor compensation has beenpaid. 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 takenthen there is no lapse.

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensationin court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in theproviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited withrespect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries(landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisitionunder Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensationin accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case theobligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Actcan be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) doesnot result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case ofnon-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five yearsor more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the“landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisitionunder Section 4 of the 1894 Act.

366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensationas provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open tohim to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) dueto non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. Theobligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensationor who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claimthat the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act.

A

BC

D

EF

G

H

366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to betreated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).

A

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act andas contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquestreport/memorandum. Once award has been passed on takingpossession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests inState there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapseunder Section 24(2).

B

366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemedlapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have faileddue to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation forfive years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in aproceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concernedas on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passedby court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.

C

D366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to newcause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedingsof land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending onthe date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does notrevive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concludedproceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of modeEof taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit ofcompensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidateacquisition.”

D

4. In view of the above and as per the Special Land AcquisitionOfficer as the possession was taken on 13.02.2003 and was handedFover to the Lucknow Development Authority on 13.02.2003 and in viewof the decision of this Court in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside.GPresent appeal is accordingly allowed.

The original writ petition filed before the High Court standsdismissed.

No costs.

HDevika Gujral