2015 (11) TMI 1903 - HC - Indian Laws

Land acquisition proceedings lapse when compensation unpaid and possession not taken within five years under Section 24

Manoharlal, Jinendra Kumar Jain, L. Rs of Late Padamchand Bansal, Smt. Shyam Verma, Santosh Kumar & Ors. Versus Indore Development Authority & Others

Manoharlal, Jinendra Kumar Jain, L. Rs of Late Padamchand Bansal, Smt. Shyam Verma, Santosh Kumar & Ors. Versus Indore Development Authority & Others - TMI Issues Involved:1. Challenge to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.2. Applicability of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (New Act).3. Whether compensation was paid or possession taken within the stipulated time under the Old Act.4. Interpretation of legal provisions regarding lapsing of acquisition proceedings.Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to Land Acquisition Proceedings:The appellants challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and a scheme framed under the Madhya Pradesh Gram Tatha Nagar Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. The land in question was acquired for various development schemes, including residential and commercial colonies and a physiotherapy center. The appellants contended that the acquisition proceedings were illegal and unsustainable based on the law laid down by the Apex Court.2. Applicability of Section 24(2) of the New Act:The appellants argued that under Section 24(2) of the New Act, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed as the award was passed more than five years ago, and neither possession was taken nor compensation paid. They asserted that the proceedings initiated in 1989 and concluded with an award in 1992 should be void under the New Act, which came into force on January 1, 2014.3. Payment of Compensation and Possession:The appellants claimed that compensation was neither paid to them nor deposited in the beneficiaries' accounts, and possession of the land was not taken. The respondents argued that the compensation was deposited in the Government Treasury, but the court held that such a deposit does not equate to payment to the landowners. The Apex Court's precedent in Pune Municipal Corporation & Another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Others was cited, establishing that mere deposit in the treasury does not suffice, and compensation must be deposited in court if not directly paid to the landowners.4. Interpretation of Legal Provisions:The court analyzed Section 24 of the New Act, which provides that if an award under the Old Act was made five years or more before the New Act's commencement and either possession was not taken or compensation was not paid, the acquisition proceedings lapse. The court emphasized that the legal fiction created by Section 24(2) would apply, leading to the lapsing of the proceedings if the stipulated conditions were met. The court further noted that the proviso to Section 24(2) does not apply where compensation for a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the beneficiaries' accounts.Conclusion:The court concluded that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed because neither possession was taken nor compensation paid as required by law. The writ appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgment was quashed. The court declared the acquisition proceedings void, allowing the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings under the New Act if necessary. No costs were awarded.