Period of stay granted by Court excluded from computation of 5 years from the date of award and commencement of 2013 Act

While computing the period from the making of the award till the commencement of the 2013 Act, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not exclude any period during which the land acquisition proceeding might have remained stayed on account of a stay order or an injunction granted by any court.

Award in the instant matter was passed in the year 1991. However, despite the fact that physical possession of land was taken over, no compensation was paid. Award was passed more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. A declaration was accordingly sought that the acquisition in respect of the subject land stood lapsed by virtue of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act.

It was held that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act stipulates that where a award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and where either of the two contingencies is satisfied, that is, (i) physical possession of the land has not been taken, or (ii) compensation has not been paid, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. While computing the period from the making of the award till the commencement of the 2013 Act, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not exclude any period during which the land acquisition proceeding might have remained stayed on account of a stay order or an injunction granted by any court. Proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not, in any manner, restrict the meanings of the words used in Section 24(2) which clearly mandate that the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed if the award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken over or the compensation has not been paid.

In response to contention that before an acquisition could be deemed to have lapsed both the conditions – (i) physical possession not having been taken and (ii) compensation not having been paid – would have to be satisfied, the contention advanced was held as not maintainable in view of the interpretation put on the provisions of section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal  Corporation, Shiv Raj and Sree Balaji Nagar. Further, in response to the contention that proviso after section 24(2) of the 2013 Act ought to be construed as a saving clause, it was observed that proviso if is so construed, saves the position existing on the commencement of the 2013 Act, implying thereby that if the majority of the landholders have received the compensation then the 1894 Act would apply. If not, then all would be entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act. Such an argument could not be accepted as the same runs contrary to the clear provisions of deemed lapsing contained in section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The position as already stands settled now indicates that there is nothing in the language of the proviso to restrict the meaning of the words used in section 24(2) mandating that the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed if the award is five years or more than five years old but the physical possession of the land has not been taken over or the compensation has not been paid.

It was accordingly held that as per provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land would be deemed to have lapsed.

[Girish Chhabra vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.]
(Delhi HC, 12.09.2014)