State Government cannot stay or override a quasi-judicial order absent statutory authority.

The petitioners’ land, measuring approximately 0.410 hectares and comprising old Gata Nos. 19, 20 and 21 (new Gata Nos. 38, 39 and 40) at Village Manoharpur, Moradabad, was included in acquisition proceedings initiated under Sections 4(1), 17(4) and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for development of a residential colony.

No award under Section 11 was made in respect of the petitioners’ land, although awards were made for other parts of the larger acquisition.

The authorities claimed that possession of the entire acquired land had been taken on 2 April 2003 after depositing 80% of the estimated compensation in the Government Treasury.

The petitioners, however, maintained that physical possession had never been taken. A Tehsil inspection report recorded that the land was enclosed, cultivated and in the petitioners’ possession.

Earlier proceedings resulted in a direction to the Collector to consider the petitioners’ application for release under Section 48 of the 1894 Act.

The District Magistrate subsequently declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, first on 26 June 2014 and again, after notice and hearing, on 16 January 2015.

Instead of challenging that order before the High Court, the Moradabad Development Authority approached the State Government. The State Government, relying on its Government Order dated 30 January 2015, stayed the District Magistrate’s order by order dated 31 March 2015.

Whether the State Government had jurisdiction to stay or override the District Magistrate’s quasi-judicial order dated 16 January 2015 through the Government Order dated 30 January 2015 and consequential order dated 31 March 2015?

Whether the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioners’ land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?

Whether the petitioners’ claim for release of the land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should be directed to be decided by the State Government?

Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act provides that where no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has been made, the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to determination of compensation apply; Section 24(2) concerns lapse where an award was made at least five years before commencement of the 2013 Act and possession was not taken or compensation was not paid.

Section 48(1) of the 1894 Act empowers the Government to withdraw from acquisition where possession has not been taken, subject to payment of compensation for loss caused by the acquisition proceedings.

In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, the Supreme Court held that the power to review, alter or set aside an earlier decision is not inherent and must be conferred by statute.

The Court also applied Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and held that deposit of compensation in the Government Treasury may constitute payment for Section 24(2) purposes.

The District Magistrate’s order was quasi-judicial because it adjudicated a dispute between the petitioners and the MDA, followed notice and hearing, considered the evidence regarding possession and compensation, and determined the legal consequences under Section 24.

Section 24 did not confer any appellate, revisional or review power on the State Government. Accordingly, the State Government could not stay or nullify the District Magistrate’s order merely through an executive Government Order; the MDA’s remedy was to challenge the order before the High Court.

The later Government Order also could not retrospectively reopen a decision already rendered on 16 January 2015.

However, the Court declined to affirm the finding of lapse under Section 24(2). No Section 11 award had been made for the petitioners’ land, making Section 24(1)(a), rather than Section 24(2), prima facie relevant.

Further, the District Magistrate had relied on Pune Municipal Corporation, which had subsequently been overruled by Indore Development Authority; therefore, his conclusion that treasury deposit did not amount to payment could not stand as the governing legal basis.

Nevertheless, the factual material—including the Tehsil report, the absence of a specific possession record, and the MDA’s subsequent willingness to consider the petitioners’ building plan—supported consideration of release under Section 48.

The Court held that the State Government lacked authority to stay or override the District Magistrate’s order dated 16 January 2015; consequently, the Government Order dated 30 January 2015 and order dated 31 March 2015 were quashed.

The Court expressly left open the correctness and applicability of the Section 24(2) lapse finding.

The matter was remitted to the State Government to decide the petitioners’ pending application for release of the land under Section 48 of the 1894 Act, after considering the relevant records, within three months of production of the certified judgment.

Until that decision, both parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession; there was no order as to costs.