ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MEGH SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 759 · Decided: 05-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 759 
ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
MEGH SINGH & ORS. 
(CiviIAppealNo. 4821 of2016) 
MAY 05, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ss../(}J, 6, 17 - Acquisition of land 
- According to appellant-authority, possession of land was taken 
and part of compensation was deposited with the Special Land 
Acquisition Officer - Respondent no.1-land Oll'ner.filed ll'rit petition 
challenging the acquisition - High Court allowed the writ petition 
on the ground that after invoking emergency clause, no mrard was 
passed even after expiry of four years - Plea of la11d u\l'ner that 
acquisition proceedings lapsed in view of operation of s.24 of 2013 
Act since neither compensation has been paid to the owner nor 
possession has been taken by LA Officer - Held: In the instant 
case, since the award has not been passed, there is no occasion of 
lapse of proceedings - Land acquisition proceedings would co11tinue 
but with the rider that the award will have to be passed and 
compensation determined under the provisions of 2013 Act - Having 
regard to the factual matrix of the residential colony having been 
set up, which fact is not controverted also, it cannot be said that 
there ll'as an urgency for the acquisition - Therefore, the approach 
made by the High Court is not correct - Appellant and the 
Acquisitioning Authority are directed to complete the acquisition 
proceedings by passing an award under the provisions of the 2013 
Act - Fair Compensation and Transparency i11 Land Acquisitio11. 
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD : Section 24 of the 2013 Act envisages mainly two 
situations; i) where the land acquisition proceedings had already 
been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award was passed till 
the date the new Act came into force and (ii) where the Award 
has been passed but neither the owner has been dispossessed 
nor has he been paid the compensation. Under the first, where 
759 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the award had not been passed, the acquisition proceedings could 
continue; but the compensation will have to be determined under 
the scheme of 2013 Act. Under the second category, there is a 
statutory lapse of the proceedings. There is also an incidental 
third situation, where award under the 1894 Act had already been 
B 
passed prior to coming into force of the 2013 Act, but payment is 
yet to be made and possession is yet to be taken. In that case, 
the further proceedings after the award could continue under the 
old Act of 1894; but if either payment or possession has not taken 
effect in five years prior to the 2013 Act, then proceedings will 
c 
lapse. In the case in hand, since admittedly the award has not 
been passed, there arises no question of lapse. The land 
acquisition proceedings would continue but with the rider that 
the award will have to be passed and compensation determined 
under the provisions of 2013 Act. In that view of the matter, it is 
not necessary to go into various other aspects. Having regard to 
0 
the factual matrix of the residential colony having been set up, 
which fact is not controverted also, it cannot be said that there 
was an urgency for the acquisition. Therefore, the approach made 
by the High Court is not correct. However, the stand of the 
Authority that it had deposited 80% of the compensation with 
the land acquisition officers and hence it was for the owner to 
E collect the money, cannot be appreciated. That is a matter 
between the Requisitioning Authority and the Acquisitioning 
Authority. There is no question of 'come and get' the 
compensation while compulsorily acquiring the land; the approach 
required under law is 'go and give'. In this case, no award has 
F 
been passed and the land value has not been given to the owner. 
The impugned order is hence set aside. The appellant and the 
Acquisitioning Authority are directed to complete the acquisition 
proceedings by passing an award under the provisions of the 2013 
Act. [Paras 6, 7, 8] [762--G-H, 763-A-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4821 of 
0 
2016. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2010 in CMWP No. 
57925 of2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 
Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Dubey, Roh it Sthelekar, Kamlendra 
H 
Mishra fortheAppellant. 
ALIGARH DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MEGH SINGH 
761 
Dinesh Kum

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.