LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MEHNDI HASAN (D) THROUGH LRS

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In the aforementioned case, the High Court of Lucknow has allowed a writ petition to the extent of Plot No.219, 1 Bigha, 10 Biswa and 10 Biswansi, Village Malesemau, Tehsil & District Lucknow and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the said land was deemed to have lapsed, under the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 

The acquisition of the land was declared to be lapsed by the High Court, solely on the basis that compensation had not been paid to the original land owners under section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 at the time of its commencement.

Being aggrieved by this judgement and order of the High Court of Judicature Allahabad Lucknow Bench, the appellant i.e., LDA has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

ISSUE:

Before the Apex Court the following issue has been raised: 

Whether the land acquisition proceedings stand lapsed under the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, or not?

ARGUMENTS:

Appellant’s Argument: The Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant cited the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors. and consciously stated that since the possession of the land was already taken over in 2003, a delay has been caused in preferring the appeal condoned which as such has already been condoned vide earlier order dated 25.11.2022. 

Respondent’s Arguments: The respondent’s arguments are not explicitly mentioned in my source document; however, it can be inferred that as per them there has been a lapse in the land acquisition proceedings as per Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. And thus, the judgement and order of the High Court must be upheld.

JUDGEMENT:

The Apex Court consciously stated that, the High Court without considering that fact that the possession of the said property/land was given to the Special Acquisition Officer which thereafter was delivered to the Lucknow Development Authority on 13.02.2003, declared that the acquisition of the said land proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, solely on the basis that the original land owners have not received any compensation under Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, at the time of its commencement.

The bench citing the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors. commented that the courts while deciding cases related to the Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 must consciously observe that the following two conditions are needed to be satisfied:

• Not taking possession of the land
• Not tendering/payment of compensation

If any of these conditions are not satisfied then the acquisition proceeding would not be deemed to have been lapsed.

In this respect the bench has also highlighted the paragraph 366 the Constitutional Bench of this court, wherein the following has been observed:

366.1. 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 then proceedings ae not said to be lapsed. Compensation would be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2. If the award has been passed within the window period of 5 years not including the period of 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.

366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. the courts while deciding cases related to the Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 must consciously observe that the following two conditions are needed to be satisfied:

• Not taking possession of the land
• Not tendering/payment of compensation

If any of these conditions are not satisfied then the acquisition proceeding would not be deemed to have been lapsed.

366.4. The expression “paid” in Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of which shall be that all the beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act 1894 shall be entitled to compensation as per the provisions of the 2013 Act.

366.5. If a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, then he could not claim that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation of the state to pay was completed as and when it has tendered the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept the compensation or who demanded for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act must be treated as part of Section 24(2), not as a part of Section 24(1)(b).

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as scrutinized under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once the award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land stands vested in the State and there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there can be no lapse under Section 24(2).

366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to the following:

• A new cause of action questioning the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition.
• Old, stale and time barred applications/petitions/claims.
• Neither it allows the landowners to question the legality of the mode of possession nor the mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition. 

The Apex Court relying on the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors. and the above-mentioned reasonings concluded that the impugned judgement and order passed by the High Court was not maintainable. Thus, the impugned judgement and order was quashed and set aside, thereby allowing the present appeal.

REFERENCES:

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=15879

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137645406/

This article is written by Agrima Singh of University of Lucknow, intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin