DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusANITA SINGH & ORS.

                         [2023] 5 S.C.R. 655                            655


             DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                A
                                 v.
                      ANITA SINGH & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 2994 of 2023)
                           MAY 01, 2023                                 B
        [ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
      Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss. 4, 6, 11, 30, 31 – Respondent no.1
                                                                        C
purchased a land – The said land was subject matter of acquisition
– Notifications u/ss.4 ,6 were issued and thereafter award was
announced – Writ petition was filed invoking s.24(2) of the 2013
Act claiming that neither the compensation has been paid to the
Respondent no.1 nor the possession of the land had been taken by
the acquiring authority, hence, the acquisition lapsed – Land           D
Acquisition Collector took the stand that possession of the land
was taken and there was dispute regarding ownership of land, so
the compensation for the land was deposited with the Reference
Court – High Court found that one of the conditions laid down in
s.24(2) of the 2013 Act having not been complied with regarding
                                                                        E
payment of compensation to the Respondent no.1, the acquisition
has lapsed – On appeal, held: The Constitution Bench of Supreme
Court in Indore Development Authority’s case has opined that
satisfaction of either of the conditions namely either taking
possession of the acquired land or payment of compensation to the
landowners would be sufficient to save the acquisition from being       F
lapsed in terms of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act – After the acquisition of
land and passing of award, the land vests in the State free from all
encumbrances – The vesting of land with the State is with possession
– From the facts as are available on record, it is evident that
respondent no.1 was admittedly not the recorded owner of the land
                                                                        G
at time of acquisition thereof or pronouncement of award by the
Land Acquisition Collector – The amount of compensation was
deposited with the Reference Court in term of Section 30/31 of the
1894 Act as the same could not be paid to Respondent no.1 – Hence,
one of the conditions being satisfied, the order passed by the High
                                                                        H
                                655
656            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     Court cannot be legally sustained whereby the acquisition has been
      held to have lapsed in terms of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. It is the admitted case of Respondent no.1 that
      she was not the recorded owner of the land at the time of issuance
B     of Notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act or even at the time of
      the passing of the Award. This is even mentioned in the application
      dated 06.05.2009 filed by her to the Land Acquisition Collector
      for release of compensation. This establishes knowledge of
      acquisition and passing of award. On account of fact that there
C     was dispute of ownership, the amount of compensation was
      deposited by the Land Acquisition Collector with the Reference
      Court under Section 30/31 of the 1894 Act. On the issue of deposit
      of compensation with the Reference Court, the position of law
      has been settled in Indore Development Authority’s case. [Para
      9][661-G-H; 662-A-B]
D
             2. The issue as to what is meant by “possession of the land
      by the State after its acquisition” has also been considered in
      Indore Development Authority’s case. It is opined therein that after
      the acquisition of land and passing of award, the land vests in the
      State free from all encumbrances. The vesting of land with the
E     State is with possession. Any person retaining the possession
      thereafter has to be treated trespasser. When large chunk of land
      is acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person or police
      force to retain the possession and start cultivating on the land till
      it is utilized. The Government is also not supposed to start
F     residing or physically occupying the same once process of the
      acquisition is complete. If after the process of acquisition is
      complete and land vest in the State free from all encumbrances
      with possession, any person retaining the land or any re-entry
      made by any person is nothing else but trespass on the State
      land. [Para 11][664-H; 665-A-C]
G
            3. From the facts as are available on record, it is evident
      that Respondent no.1 was admittedly not the recorded owner of
      the land at time of acquisition thereof or pronouncement of Award
      by the Land Acquisition Collector. The amount of compensation
      was deposited with the Reference Court in term of Section 30/31
H
   DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ANITA SINGH &                            657
                      ORS.

of the 1894 Act as the same could not be paid to Respondent                A
no.1. Hence, one of the conditions being satisfied, the order
passed by the High Court cannot be legally sustained whereby
the acquisition has been held to have lapsed in terms of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act. [Para 13][667-B-C]
      Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others                B
      (2020) 8 SCC 129: [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
      Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki
      & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183: [2014] 1 SCR 783 – referred
      to.
                        Case Law Reference                                 C

[2020] 3 SCR 1                   followed                 para 6
[2014] 1 SCR 783                 referred to              para 6
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2994
of 2023.                                                                   D
      From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.5339 of 2016.
      Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Neeraj Kumar Verma, Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Sujeeta                E
Srivastava, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      RAJESH BINDAL, J.
      1. The order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi      F
in Writ Petition (C) No.5339/2016 has been impugned before this Court.
Vide aforesaid order, the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent no.1
invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) was allowed and it
was opined that acquisition in question has lapsed.                        G
      2. The facts of the case as are available on record are that the
Respondent no.1 had filed a writ petition stating that she had purchased
100 square yards bearing Khasra No.140/9/1 situated in the Revenue
Estate of Village Dichaun Kalan Delhi by virtue of sale deed dated
                                                                           H
658                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     04.03.2005. The said land was subject matter of acquisition. A
      Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
      (hereinafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) was issued on 07.04.2006
      which was followed by a Notification under Section 6 of the 1894 on
      04.04.2007. The Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector
      on 30.12.2008 under Section 11 of the 1894 Act.
B
            3. The writ petition was filed in the year 2016 invoking Section
      24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that neither the compensation has been
      paid to the Respondent no.1 nor the possession of the land had been
      taken by the acquiring authority, hence, the acquisition lapsed.
C            4. The stand taken by the Land Acquisition Collector in the counter
      affidavit filed before the High Court was that the possession of the
      acquired land was taken on 10.02.2012 except 3 biswas of land on which
      certain structure had been build up. The Respondent no.1 not being the
      recorded owner of land, the compensation for the land, including the
      cases where there was dispute regarding ownership, was deposited with
D     the Reference Court on 27.12.2013.
            5. The High Court found that one of the conditions laid down in
      Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having not been complied with regarding
      payment of compensation to the Respondent no.1, the acquisition has
      lapsed.
E
             6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of
      the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Indore Development
      Authority v. Manoharlal and Others1, whereby the earlier judgment
      of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal
      Solanki & Ors.2 was overruled. The order passed by the High Court
F     cannot be legally sustained. It was opined by the Constitution Bench
      that compliance of either of the two conditions i.e. taking over of
      possession of the land or payment of compensation is sufficient to sustain
      the acquisition. In the case in hand, it is the admitted case of the
      Respondent no.1 that she was not the recorded owner of the land though
G     she claimed that the plot in question was purchased by her vide sale
      deed dated 04.03.2005. The land is being utilized by the Government for
      construction of 100 Meter wide Road, under Planned Development of
      Delhi. The land is required for UER-II, which is connecting NH-1, NH-
      1
          (2020) 8 SCC 129
      2
H         (2014) 3 SCC 183
   DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ANITA SINGH &                              659
              ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

10 and NH-8 further connecting it to NH-2. The said project is of great      A
public importance and has to be completed before 15 August 2023 in
light of Amrit Mahotsav (75 years of Independence). This will help in
de-congestion of Delhi and provide better connectivity to the public. As
there was dispute regarding ownership, the amount of compensation
was deposited with the Reference Court on 27.12.2013. The same will
                                                                             B
amount to tendering the compensation as in case of dispute of ownerships
it could not have been paid to anyone. Learned counsel for the appellant
further submitted that the Respondent no.1 herself had filed application
on 06.05.2009 before the Land Acquisition Collector for release of
compensation. She clearly stated therein that though she is not the
recorded owner of the land, as she had purchased the same through            C
general power of attorney, the compensation should not be paid to the
recorded owner of the plot. This was admission on the part of the
Respondent no.1 that she had knowledge about acquisition of land. The
order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside.
      7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper         D
books.
       8. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development
Authority’s case (supra) has opined that satisfaction of either of the
conditions namely either taking possession of the acquired land or payment
of compensation to the landowners would be sufficient to save the            E
acquisition from being lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Various questions posed before the Constitution Bench of this Court
were also answered. Relevant para-nos. 362 and 366 are extracted below:
      “362. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
      Corporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and all other           F
      decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has
      been followed, are also overruled. …
      ...
      366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
      questions as under:                                                    G
      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, there is no lapse of proceedings.
      Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of
      the 2013 Act.                                                          H
660     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     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.
B     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
C     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.
D                                              (emphasis supplied)
      366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
      24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of
      compensation in court. The consequence of non- deposit is
      provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not
E     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
F     the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest
      under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit
      of 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
G     “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
H     24(2) due to non-payment or non- deposit of compensation
   DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ANITA SINGH &                           661
              ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

      in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the        A
      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.
      366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be        B
      treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
      366.7. The mode of taking possession under 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    C
      24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken
      there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
      366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed
      lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have
      failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay             D
      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 1-1-2014. The period of
      subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be
      excluded in the computation of five years.                          E
      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. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred
      claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow          F
      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.”
       9. It is the admitted case of Respondent no.1 that she was not     G
the recorded owner of the land at the time of issuance of Notification
under Section 4 of 1894 Act or even at the time of the passing of the
Award. This is even mentioned in the application dated 06.05.2009 filed
by her to the Land Acquisition Collector for release of compensation.
This establishes knowledge of acquisition and passing of award. On
                                                                          H
662            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     account of fact that there was dispute of ownership, the amount of
      compensation was deposited by the Land Acquisition Collector with the
      Reference Court under Section 30/31 of the 1894 Act. On the issue of
      deposit of compensation with the Reference Court, the position of law
      has been settled in Indore Development Authority’s case (supra). Paras
      117, 118 and 119 thereof, which are extracted below:
B
            “117. Payment of compensation under the 1894 Act is
            provided for by Section 31 of the Act, which is to be after
            passing of the award under Section 11. The exception, is in
            case of urgency under Section 17, is where it has to be
            tendered before taking possession. Once an award has been
C           passed, the Collector is bound to tender the payment of
            compensation to the persons interested entitled to it, as found
            in the award and shall pay it to them unless “prevented” by
            the contingencies mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 31.
            Section 31(3) contains a non obstante clause which
D           authorises the Collector with the sanction of the appropriate
            Government, in the interest of the majority, by the grant of
            other lands in exchange, the remission of land revenue on
            other lands or in such other way as may be equitable.
            118. Section 31(1) enacts that the Collector has to tender
E           payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons
            interested entitled thereto according to the award and shall
            pay such amount to a person interested in the land, unless he
            (the Collector) is prevented from doing so, for any of the three
            contingencies provided by sub-section (2). Section 31(2)
            provides for deposit of compensation in court in case the State
F           is prevented from making payment in the event of:
               (i) refusal to receive it;
               (ii) if there be no person competent to alienate the land;
               (iii) if there is any dispute as to the title to receive the
G              compensation; or
               (iv) if there is dispute as to the apportionment.
            In such exigencies, the Collector shall deposit the amount of
            the compensation in the court to which a reference under
            Section 18 would be submitted.
H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ANITA SINGH &                          663
           ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

  119. Section 34 deals with a situation where any of the             A
  obligations under Section 31 is not fulfilled i.e. when the
  amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or before
  taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the
  amount awarded with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the
  time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid
                                                                      B
  or deposited; and after one year from the date on which
  possession is taken, interest payable shall be @ 15% p.a.
  The scheme of the 1894 Act clearly makes it out that when the
  award is passed under Section 11, thereafter possession is
  taken as provided under Section 16, land vests in the State
  Government. Under Section 12(2), a notice of the award has          C
  to be issued by the Collector. Taking possession is not
  dependent upon payment. Payment has to be tendered under
  Section 31 unless the Collector is “prevented from making
  payment”, as provided under Section 31(2). In case of failure
  under Section 31(1) or 31(3), also Collector is not precluded
                                                                      D
  from making payment, but it carries interest under Section 34
  @ 9% for the first year from the date it ought to have been
  paid or deposited and thereafter @ 15%. Thus, once land
  has been vested in the State under Section 16, in case of failure
  to pay the compensation under Section 31(1) or to deposit
  under Section 31(2), compensation has to be paid along with         E
  interest, and due to non-compliance of Section 31, there is no
  lapse of acquisition. The same spirit has been carried forward
  in the 2013 Act by providing in Section 24(2). Once possession
  has been taken though the payment has not been made, the
  compensation has to be paid along with interest as envisaged
                                                                      F
  under Section 34, and in a case, payment has been made,
  possession has not been taken, there is no lapse under Section
  24(2). In a case where possession has been taken under the
  1894 Act as provided by Section 16 or 17(1) the land vests
  absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances, if
  compensation is not paid, there is no divesting there will be       G
  no lapse as compensation carries interest @ 9% or @ 15%
  as envisaged under Section 34 of the 1894 Act. The proviso
  to Section 24(2) makes some wholesome provision in case the
  amount has not been deposited with respect to majority of
  landholdings, in such an event, not only those persons but
                                                                      H
664            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A           all the beneficiaries, though for minority of holding
            compensation has been paid, shall be entitled to higher
            compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013
            Act. The expression used is “all beneficiaries specified in the
            notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Land
            Acquisition Act” i.e. the 1894 Act, means that the persons
B
            who are to be paid higher compensation are those who have
            been recorded as beneficiaries as on the date of notification
            under Section 4. The proviso gives effect to, and furthers the
            principle that under the 1894 Act, the purchases made after
            issuance of notification under Section 4 are void. As such,
C           the benefit of higher compensation under the proviso to
            Section 24(2) is intended to be given to the beneficiaries
            mentioned in the notification under Section 4 of the 1894
            Act.”
                                                       (emphasis supplied)
D            10. Further, with reference to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the
      position is summed up in para 208 of Indore Development Authority’s
      case (supra), which is extracted below:
            “208. … … … In our opinion, when amount has been
            tendered, the obligation has been fulfilled by the Collector.
E           Landowners cannot be forced to receive it. In case a person
            has not accepted the amount wants to take the advantage of
            non-payment, though the amount has remained (sic unpaid)
            due to his own act. It is not open to him to contend that the
            amount has not been paid to him, as such, there should be
F           lapse of the proceedings. Even in a case when offer for
            payment has been made but not deposited, liability to pay
            amount along with interest subsist and if not deposited for
            majority of holding, for that adequate provisions have been
            given in the proviso also to Section 24(2). The scheme of the
            2013 Act in Sections 77 and 80 is also the same as that
G           provided in Sections 31 and 34 of the 1894 Act.”
                                                       (emphasis supplied)
            11. The issue as to what is meant by “possession of the land by
      the State after its acquisition” has also been considered in Indore
      Development Authority’s case(supra). It is opined therein that after
H
   DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ANITA SINGH &                                 665
              ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

the acquisition of land and passing of award, the land vests in the State       A
free from all encumbrances. The vesting of land with the State is with
possession. Any person retaining the possession thereafter has to be
treated trespasser. When large chunk of land is acquired, the State is not
supposed to put some person or police force to retain the possession and
start cultivating on the land till it is utilized. The Government is also not
                                                                                B
supposed to start residing or physically occupying the same once process
of the acquisition is complete. If after the process of acquisition is
complete and land vest in the State free from all encumbrances with
possession, any person retaining the land or any re-entry made by any
person is nothing else but trespass on the State land. Relevant paragraphs
244, 245 and 256 are extracted below:                                           C
      “244. Section 16 of the Act of 1894 provided that possession
      of land may be taken by the State Government after passing
      of an award and thereupon land vest free from all
      encumbrances in the State Government. Similar are the
      provisions made in the case of urgency in Section 17(1). The              D
      word “possession” has been used in the Act of 1894, whereas
      in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, the expression “physical
      possession” is used. It is submitted that drawing of panchnama
      for taking over the possession is not enough when the actual
      physical possession remained with the landowner and Section
      24(2) requires actual physical possession to be taken, not the            E
      possession in any other form. When the State has acquired
      the land and award has been passed, land vests in the State
      Government free from all encumbrances. The act of vesting
      of the land in the State is with possession, any person retaining
      the possession, thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser and           F
      has no right to possess the land which vests in the State free
      from all encumbrances.
      245. The question which arises whether there is any difference
      between taking possession under the Act of 1894 and the
      expression “physical possession” used in Section 24(2). As a              G
      matter of fact, what was contemplated under the Act of 1894,
      by taking the possession meant only physical possession of
      the land. Taking over the possession under the Act of 2013
      always amounted to taking over physical possession of the
      land.When the State Government acquires land and drawns
                                                                                H
666      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to
      taking the physical possession of the land. On the large chunk
      of property or otherwise which is acquired, the Government
      is not supposed to put some other person or the police force
      in possession to retain it and start cultivating it till the land is
      used by it for the purpose for which it has been acquired.
B
      The Government is not supposed to start residing or to
      physically occupy it once possession has been taken by
      drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining possession
      thereof.Thereafter, if any further retaining of land or any re-
      entry is made on the land or someone starts cultivation on the
C     open land or starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is deemed
      to be the trespasser on land which in possession of the State.
      The possession of trespasser always inures for the benefit of
      the real owner that is the State Government in the case.
                                     xxxx
D     256. Thus, it is apparent that vesting is with possession and
      the statute has provided under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act
      of 1894 that once possession is taken, absolute vesting
      occurred. It is an indefeasible right and vesting is with
      possession thereafter. The vesting specified under Section 16,
E     takes place after various steps, such as, notification under
      Section 4, declaration under Section 6, notice under Section
      9, award under Section 11 and then possession. The statutory
      provision of vesting of property absolutely free from all
      encumbrances has to be accorded full effect. Not only the
      possession vests in the State but all other encumbrances are
F     also removed forthwith. The title of the landholder ceases
      and the state becomes the absolute ownerand in possession
      of the property. Thereafter there is no control of the landowner
      over the property. He cannot have any animus to take the
      property and to control it. Even if he has retained the
G     possession or otherwise trespassed upon it after possession
      has been taken by the State, he is a trespasser and such
      possession of trespasser enures for his benefit and on behalf
      of the owner.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)
H
   DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ANITA SINGH &                                667
              ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

       12. As per the stand taken by the appellant, the land in question is    A
being utilised for UER-II, which is connecting NH-1, NH-10 and NH-8
further connecting it to NH-2. The said project is of great public
importance and has to be completed before 15.08.2023 in light of Amrit
Mahotsav (75 years of Independence). This will help in de-congestion
of Delhi.
                                                                               B
       13. From the facts as are available on record, it is evident that
Respondent no.1 was admittedly not the recorded owner of the land at
time of acquisition thereof or pronouncement of Award by the Land
Acquisition Collector. The amount of compensation was deposited with
the Reference Court in term of Section 30/31 of the 1894 Act as the
same could not be paid to Respondent no.1. Hence, one of the conditions        C
being satisfied, in our view the order passed by the High Court cannot
be legally sustained whereby the acquisition has been held to have lapsed
in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
      14. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order
passed by the High Court is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the          D
Respondent no.1 in the High Court is dismissed.

Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)
                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H