Summary
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) declared that acquisition proceedings for three plots acquired for the Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, solely because the compensation, though deposited in the treasury, had not been deposited in court or paid to the landowners, relying on DDA v. Sukhbir Singh. The Supreme Court set the judgment aside. Under the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, deemed lapse occurs only where, for five years or more before the 2013 Act commenced, neither possession was taken nor compensation paid; non-deposit of compensation in court does not cause lapse, and once possession has been taken under Section 16 of the 1894 Act the land vests in the State with no divesting.
Issues
- Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where compensation was deposited in the government treasury rather than in court and possession of the land had been taken before the Act came into force.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The word 'or' between possession and compensation is read as 'nor'/'and'; lapse occurs only when neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid for five years or more before 01.01.2014. Deposit in the treasury instead of court does not invalidate the acquisition, and possession having been taken in 2005 there was no deemed lapse. (¶¶ 3, 3.1, 4)
- Sections 16, 31 and 34, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Once the award is passed and possession taken under Section 16 the land vests in the State; non-fulfilment of the Section 31 obligation to deposit attracts interest under Section 34, not lapse (Indore Development Authority, para 366). (¶ 3)
Held
- The High Court's reliance on DDA v. Sukhbir Singh is unsustainable after the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which holds that the expression 'paid' in Section 24(2) does not include deposit in court but that non-deposit does not result in lapse, that once possession is taken there is no lapse, and that Section 24(2) does not permit landowners to question the mode of deposit in the treasury to invalidate concluded acquisitions. (¶¶ 3, 3.1)
- Since the compensation was deposited in the treasury and possession of the plots was taken on 07.09.2005, the acquisition proceedings cannot be deemed to have lapsed and the landowners' writ petition stands dismissed. (¶¶ 3.1, 4)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) judgment of 19.07.2017 in Misc. Bench No. 3962 of 2005 declaring the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act quashed and the writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.