AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYAND Vs. RAM NEWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dtd. 19/7/2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Bench No.3962 of 2005 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein - original writ petitioners and has held that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the three plots in question pertaining to the original writ petitioners stand lapsed under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2013') , the Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority and another has preferred the present appeal.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

(3.) By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has held that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the three plots in question shall stand lapsed under sub-­sec. (2) of Sec. 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that, though the deposit of the compensation was made in the Treasury, but the same was not deposited in the Court and consequently the payment of compensation of the amount was not made to the land owners. The High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority versus Sukhbir Singh and others, (2016) 16 SCC 258. However, in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. In paragraph 366 of the aforesaid judgment this Court has observed and held as under: