Full Judgment Text
// 1 //
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. /2023
(@SLP (C) NOS.3475253 OF 2016)
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
JAYANTIBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL .. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil
Application No.9740/2012 by which the Division
Bench of the High Court of Gujarat has allowed the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.03.17
14:30:32 IST
Reason:
said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have
// 2 //
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as “Act, 2013”) as also the judgment and
order dated 01.04.2016 passed by the High Court of
Gujarat in Misc. Civil Application (For Review) No.3036
of 2015 in Special Civil Application No.9740/2012, the
State of Gujarat and others have preferred the present
appeals.
2.
The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell
are as under:
2.1 That, the respondent herein – original writ petitioner
was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.287
admeasuring 2 Hectare 37 Are 75 Sq. Mtrs. of village
Tarsava, Taluka Vaghodia, District Vadodara
(hereinafter referred to as “land in question”). A
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) came
to be issued on 11.04.1991 to acquire the land in
question alongwith adjacent agricultural lands for the
// 3 //
purpose of resettlement of Narmada Project oustees.
That, thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the
Act, 1894 was issued on 06.02.1992. The respondent
herein – original land owner – original writ petitioner
entered into an agreement and a consent award was
passed on 11.06.1993. As per the agreement and the
consent award, initially 90% of the amount of
compensation was required to be paid to the land
owners and 10% amount was required to be paid
thereafter. However, it appears that the respondent –
land owner had second thought about the consent and
on 13.02.1995, he wrote to the Assistant
Commissioner, Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency
that the compensation may not be paid and the land in
question be released from acquisition. On such
application, the Assistant Commissioner passed an
order dated 07.03.1995, in which, he recorded that the
order was passed for payment of 90% of the
compensation, however, the land owner did not accept
such compensation. Thereafter, even the order of
payment of remaining 10% of compensation was also
// 4 //
passed however, the land owner – respondent herein
did not accept such compensation and that he has
now applied for cancellation of acquisition itself on the
ground that due to family disagreements, he is not
prepared to sell the land. Thereafter, nothing further
happened till 2009 and it appears that the land
owner/s continued to be in possession and continued
to cultivate the agricultural lands.
2.2 That, on 21.01.2009, the Assistant Commissioner,
Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency cancelled the
order dated 07.03.1995 by observing that the
acquisition of the land in question has been completed
and the land has been vested in Sardar Sarovar
Rehabilitation Agency and on basis of that affected
persons were allotted also and therefore, as per the
legal provision, once an order is passed, it is
mandatory to make the payment of compensation.
Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Sardar Sarovar
Rehabilitation Agency cancelled the earlier order dated
07.03.1995 and restored the order for 90% and 10%
// 5 //
amount of compensation as per the earlier orders
dated 05.05.1993 and 09.02.1994 (for payment of 90%
and 10% of the amount of compensation respectively).
Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 21.01.2009 of
the Assistant Commissioner, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer vide communication / letter dated
05.04.2010 conveyed to the respondent herein –
original land owner that his case for payment of
compensation is fixed on 16.04.2010 in the office of
TalaticumMantri, Tarsava and therefore, he shall
remain present and receive compensation. That,
thereafter the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner
filed the writ petition for setting aside the consent
award dated 11.06.1993 passed under Section 11 of
the Act, 1894.
2.3 Before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of
respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner – land owner
that his request for withdrawal of the consent was
accepted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and
thereafter, no compensation was received and the
// 6 //
possession of the land in question was also not taken
over and therefore, many years later the authority
cannot implement the award by insisting on payment
of compensation.
2.4 In the meantime, Act, 2013 came into force with effect
from 01.01.2014 and therefore, Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013 was pressed into service and it was
submitted on behalf of the land owner that as, neither
the compensation has been paid nor the possession of
the land in question is taken and that the land owner
continued to be in possession of the land in question,
the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2.5 It was the case on behalf of the Acquiring Body and the
State Government that the land owner cannot
withdraw such consent once the award was passed. It
was also submitted on behalf of the Acquiring Body
and the State Government that merely because the
land owner did not accept the compensation would not
// 7 //
make any difference. It is submitted that once the
award was passed and a further order was passed to
pay the amount of compensation as per the consent
award, the same has to be implemented and therefore,
the Assistant Commissioner was justified in passing
the order dated 21.01.2009 which was communicated
by Land Acquisition Officer on 05.04.2010 asking the
land owner to receive the compensation, as originally
fixed.
2.6 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
has set aside the order dated 05.04.2010 by observing
that such an order could not have been passed after a
period of 15 years having once accepted the request on
behalf of the land owner to cancel the acquisition.
Thereafter, the Division Bench of the High Court has
further passed an order that as, neither the
compensation is paid nor the possession is taken
and/or the original land owner continued to be in
possession and cultivating the land in question, the
acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under Section
// 8 //
24(2) of the Act, 2013. Consequently, the Division
Bench of the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition by setting aside the land acquisition award
dated 11.06.1993 qua the land in question.
2.7 That, thereafter the Assistant Commissioner and
others filed the review petition before the High Court
against the observations made by the Division Bench
that possession has not been taken over. It was
pointed out that as such the possession was already
taken over by the Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation
Agency at the time of passing of the award. However,
the High Court has dismissed the review application.
2.8 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court in Special Civil Application as well as the
impugned order passed in Review Application are the
subject matter of present appeals.
3. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel appearing
for the State of Gujarat has vehemently submitted that
as such the issue involved in the present appeals viz.
// 9 //
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be deemed lapse of acquisition under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is now not res integra in
view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC
129.
3.1 It is submitted that in the present case there was a
consent award passed on 11.06.1993 and thereafter
the orders were passed to pay 90% and 10%
compensation vide orders dated 05.05.1993 and
09.02.1994. However, the original land owner did not
accept the compensation though offered and he
insisted for withdrawal of the acquisition. It is
submitted that therefore, thereafter vide order dated
07.03.1995, the order of compensation under the
award came to be cancelled.
3.2 It is submitted that however as Award under Section
11 of the Act, 1894 continued and amount of
// 10 //
compensation was to be paid under the consent
award / award, the Assistant Commissioner was
justified in passing the order dated 21.01.2009, which
was communicated to the original writ petitioner by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide
communication dated 05.04.2010.
3.3 It is submitted that once the award under Section 11
of the Act, 1894 was a consent award, the same could
not have been set aside by the High Court
subsequently on the ground that the compensation
under the Act, 1894 has not been paid for number of
years and that the land owner continued to be in
possession of the land in question. It is submitted that
as such it was the specific case on behalf of the
appellants before the High Court that it was the
original land owner who did not accept the
compensation offered and despite consent award, he
continued to cultivate the land forcibly. It is submitted
that even it was the specific case on behalf of the
appellants before the High Court that possession of the
// 11 //
land in question was taken over by drawing
panchnama at the time of passing of the consent
award. It is submitted that however the High Court
has not believed taking over the possession
considering the affidavit filed by the Assistant
Commissioner in which the Assistant Commissioner
stated that the land owner continued to cultivate the
land. It is submitted that however the High Court has
not considered the entire affidavit on possession in its
true perspective. It is submitted that as per the
decision of this Court in the case of Indore
taking over the
Development Authority (Supra)
possession of land / open land by drawing the
panchnama is one of the mode which is legally
permissible. It is submitted that therefore the High
Court has materially erred in setting aside the award
dated 11.06.1993 under Section 11 of the Act, 1894
and also declaring that the acquisition with respect to
the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
// 12 //
3.4 Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants – State of Gujarat and Others has
further submitted that even otherwise in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall not be any
deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013.
It is submitted that in the present case admittedly
pursuant to the consent award passed under Section
11 of the Act, 1894, the orders were passed to pay the
compensation to the land owner and the land owner
was called upon to come to the office of Talaticum
Mantri, Tarsava to accept the compensation. However,
the land owner refused to accept the compensation as
offered. It is submitted that once there was a refusal
on the part of the land owner to accept the
compensation though offered, there shall not be any
deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3.5 It is further submitted that as observed and held by
this Court in the case of Indore Development
// 13 //
Authority (Supra) , only in a case where there is a
lapse on the part of the Acquiring Body in not
tendering / paying the compensation, and not taking
over the possession, there shall be deemed lapse under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. It is submitted that in
the present case there was no lapse at all on the part
of the Acquiring Body and/or State Government in not
taking the possession and in not tendering / paying
the compensation. It is submitted that as such the
original land owner refused to accept the
compensation which has been recorded in the order
dated 07.03.1995.
Making above submissions and relying upon
decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the
case of , it is
Indore Development Authority (Supra)
prayed to allow the present appeals.
4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Nakul
Diwan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the contesting respondent – original writ petitioner –
original land owner.
// 14 //
4.1 It is prayed by Shri Diwan, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the original land owner that
before the High Court there was a challenge to the
subsequent communication dated 21.01.2009 by the
Assistant Commissioner communicated vide letter
dated 05.04.2010 by the learned Special Land
Acquisition Officer cancelling the earlier order
suo moto
dated 07.03.1995. It is submitted that the said issue
has not been decided by the High Court and therefore,
the matter may be remanded to the High Court to
consider the legality and validity of the order dated
21.01.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and
the communication dated 05.04.2010 by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer calling upon the land owner to
remain present in the office of TalaticumMantri,
Tarsava to receive / accept the compensation.
4.2 It is further submitted by Shri Diwan, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the original land owner
that in the present case the original land owner
withdrew his consent and therefore, refused to accept
// 15 //
the compensation awarded under the consent award
and requested to withdraw the acquisition, which
came to be accepted by the Assistant Commissioner
vide order dated 07.03.1995 and the award was
cancelled. It is submitted that in that view of the
matter, thereafter, after a period of 15 years, it was not
open for the Assistant Commissioner to cancel the
order dated 07.03.1995 that too in exercise of suo
moto powers and without giving any opportunity of
hearing to the original land owner.
4.3 It is further submitted by Shri Diwan, learned senior
counsel that even otherwise when the original land
owner continued to remain in physical possession and
cultivating the land in question even for a period of 15
years after the consent award passed in the year 1993
and the compensation was not paid for number of
years, in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, there
shall be deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings. It is
submitted that therefore the Division Bench of the
High Court has not committed any error in setting
// 16 //
aside the consent award on the ground that the same
has not been implemented for number of years and
that the land in question is not used by the Acquiring
Body for the purpose for which it was acquired and the
High Court has rightly declared that the acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Making above submissions, it is prayed to
dismiss the present appeals.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for
respective parties at length.
5.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that the original
award dated 11.06.1993 passed under Section 11 of
the Act, 1894 was a consent award with respect to the
land owned by the present respondent – original land
owner as well as other lands acquired for resettlement
of Narmada Project oustees. It is also to be noted that
thereafter and pursuant to the consent award, the
amount of compensation (90% + 10%) was in fact
// 17 //
offered to the land owner and he was called upon to
accept the compensation offered, but the respondent –
original land owner refused to accept the
compensation offered and insisted to withdraw the
acquisition. It was the case on behalf of the appellants
before the High Court that the possession of the land
in question was taken by drawing spot panchnama at
the time of passing of the consent award. However, the
High Court has disbelieved the same by observing that
even as per the affidavit of the Assistant
Commissioner, the land owner continued to be in
possession of the land in question and continued to
cultivate the same. However, the affidavit which is
reproduced in the impugned judgment and order is
required to be considered in its true perspective and in
its entirety. In the affidavit dated 22.03.2013 filed by
one Shri Bhagora Kamlasingh Jokhanbhai on behalf of
the Assistant Commissioner, it was stated as under:
“6. I state that however the Petitioner
refused to handover the land and to take
compensation along with other similarly
situated farmers whose land were also
// 18 //
acquired as per the Award dated 11.06.1993.
The Petitioner along with other persons made
an application dated 27.07.1993 for
cancellation of the Award.
7. I state that by the order dated
07.03.1995, pursuant to the reluctance of the
Petitioner to hand over the possession and to
take the compensation on so called grounds of
family disputes, the order of payment of
compensation was cancelled, but at the same
time, the order of acquisition was not
cancelled. It appears that the Petitioner has
successfully avoided to handover the
possession of the land acquired under the
provisions of Act though the land is vested in
the Respondent No.3”
14. With regard to the averments made in
para No.3.2 of the petition, I deny the same
inasmuch as Petitioner refused to take the
compensation and therefore, last notice was
given to the Petitioner on 05.04.2010 and the
Petitioner refused to accept the compensation,
the same is now, deposited with the
Government Treasury as stated hereinabove.
The Petitioner is, therefore, require to
handover the possession of land to the
Respondent No.3 so that the same can be
allotted for rehabilitation of the affected
persons of Narmada Project.”
5.2 Thus, from the aforesaid it can be seen that it was the
specific case on behalf of the appellants and the
Assistant Commissioner that the land owner refused to
hand over the land and refused to accept the
// 19 //
compensation alongwith other similarly situated
farmers whose lands were also acquired as per the
consent award dated 11.06.1993. It can also be seen
that it was the case on behalf of the appellants that by
order dated 07.03.1995, pursuant to the reluctance of
the land owner to hand over the possession (physical
possession) and to take the compensation on socalled
ground of family disputes, the order of payment of
compensation was cancelled. But at the same time,
the order of acquisition was not cancelled and that the
land owner successfully avoided to hand over the
possession of the land acquired under the provisions of
the Act, 1894 though the land vested in the Sardar
Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency.
5.3 Considering the aforesaid factual aspects it is required
to be considered whether there shall be deemed lapse
of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as
observed and held by the High Court ?
In the case of Indore Development Authority
, it is observed and held as under:
(Supra)
// 20 //
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
answer the questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)
(a) in case the award is not made as on 112014,
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.
366.2. 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.
366.3. 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.
The expression “paid” in the main part
366.4.
of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a
deposit of compensation in court. The consequence
of nondeposit 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. Nondeposit of
// 21 //
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.
366.5. 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
nonpayment or nondeposit 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.
The proviso to Section 24(2) of the
366.6.
2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2),
not part of Section 24(1)(b).
The mode of taking possession under
366.7.
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).
The provisions of Section 24(2)
366.8.
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 112014. The period of subsistence of interim
orders passed by court has to be excluded in the
computation of five years.
// 22 //
366.9. 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. 112014. 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.”
5.4 Therefore, as per the law laid down by this Court in
the case of ,
Indore Development Authority (Supra)
taking over the possession of the land by drawing
panchnama is held to be legally permissible and can
be said to be taking over the possession legally. In the
present case, there was a consent award under Section
11 of the Act, 1894. The possession was taken by
drawing the panchnama at the time of passing of the
consent award dated 11.06.1993. However, thereafter,
because of the reluctance on the part of the land
owner, he did not actually and physically hand over
the possession and he continued to cultivate the
acquired land which actually vested in the State
// 23 //
Government / Acquiring Body / Sardar Sarovar
Rehabilitation Agency.
6.
Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, there shall not be any deemed lapse under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the
amount of compensation was not paid. It is an
admitted position that after the consent award, under
Section 11 of the Act, 1894, was passed on
11.06.1993, the amount of compensation was in fact
offered to the land owner alongwith other land owners
and the respondent – original land owner was called
upon to remain present in the office of Talaticum
Mantri to receive / accept the compensation. However,
the land owner refused to accept the compensation
though offered. In that view of the matter, once the
compensation was offered, which as such was offered
pursuant to the consent award under Section 11 of the
Act, 1894, but the land owner refused to accept the
same, how there can be any deemed lapse of
acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013?
// 24 //
6.1 As per the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority (Supra) and even
otherwise considering the object of providing the
deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013 seems to be that if there is any lapse on the
part of the Acquiring Body / agency in not taking the
possession and not paying the compensation there
shall be deemed lapse of acquisition. Therefore, for a
deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013,
there shall be a lapse on the part of the Acquiring Body
/ beneficiary in not taking the possession and not
paying the compensation. In the present case, both the
conditions are not satisfied. In fact, the amount of
compensation under the consent award under Section
11 of the Act, 1894 was offered and the land owner
was called upon to accept the compensation however,
the land owner refused to accept the same. Even the
possession was taken by drawing the panchnama at
the time of declaration of the consent award under
Section 11 of the Act, 1894. However, thereafter,
// 25 //
because of the reluctance on the part of the original
land owner, the physical and actual possession of the
land could not be taken by the Acquiring Body. From
the aforesaid it can be seen that there was no lapse at
all on the part of the Authority neither in offering /
paying the compensation nor in not taking the
possession. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High
Court has materially erred in declaring that the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013.
7. Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court in setting aside the award
dated 11.06.1993 on the ground that the award has
not been implemented for number of years and the
amount of compensation has not been paid for number
of years and the land is not utilized / used for number
of years is concerned, at the outset it is required to be
noted that it was the original owner who refused to
accept the compensation offered in the year 1993.
// 26 //
Therefore, an order dated 07.05.1993 was passed
cancelling the order of offering the compensation.
However, the acquisition and the consent award, both
continued. However, thereafter, the land owner
continued to make representations to release the land
from acquisition. Therefore, it was the original land
owner who did not accept the compensation offered
and continued to make representations to release the
land from acquisition. In these circumstances, the
Division Bench of High Court has committed a very
serious error in setting aside the consent award on the
aforesaid ground. The consent award under Section 11
of the Act, 1894 ought not to have been set aside in
the manner in which it is set aside. The High Court
has not at all properly appreciated and considered the
conduct on the part of the land owner. At this stage it
is required to be noted that at many places the High
Court has observed in paragraph 11 that “the
petitioner, alongwith other land owners of the area,
agreed to acquisition of his land on a fixed rate of
compensation”. Even the High Court has also taken
// 27 //
note of the fact that the amount of compensation was
offered but the original land owner refused to accept
the same. Once the land owner refuses to accept the
amount of compensation offered by the Acquiring
Body, thereafter it will not be open for the original land
owner to pray for lapse of acquisition on the ground
that the compensation has not been paid. As observed
hereinabove, there shall be deemed lapse of acquisition
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 if there is a lapse
on the part of the Acquiring Body / beneficiary in not
taking the possession and the compensation is not
paid. Even otherwise as observed and held by this
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
(Supra) , for the deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking the
possession and not paying the compensation, both are
required to be satisfied. Therefore, if one of the
conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any
deemed lapse.
8. Now, so far as the prayer on behalf of the land owner
// 28 //
to remand the matter to the High Court to consider the
legality and validity of the subsequent order dated
21.01.2009 cancelling the earlier order dated
07.03.1995 is concerned, at the outset it is required to
be noted that the order dated 21.01.2009 was as such
not the subject matter of the writ petition before the
High Court. No prayer was made to set aside the order
dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency.
What was challenged before the High Court was award
under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 and the subsequent
communication dated 05.04.2010 issued by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer calling upon the land
owner to remain present in the office of Talati cum
Mantri to accept the compensation and to release the
land. Be that as it may, assuming that the order dated
21.01.2009 was bad in law and the earlier order dated
07.03.1995 is restored, in that case also, it would not
have a bearing on the aspect of deemed lapse under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The fact remains that
though the amount of compensation was offered and
// 29 //
the original land owner was called upon to accept the
compensation as per the consent award, he refused to
accept the same.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
present appeals succeed. Impugned judgment and
order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the High Court of
Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.9740/2012 and
the order dated 01.04.2016 passed in review
application being Misc. Civil Application (For Review)
No.3036 of 2015 in Special Civil Application
No.9740/2012 are hereby quashed and set aside. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(MANOJ MISRA)
New Delhi,
March 17, 2023