JAGJIT SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions raise a common issue and, therefore, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. The point urged on behalf of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the acquisition of their lands lapsed on account of applicability of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act").

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that the three conditions for attracting the deeming provisions of section 24(2) of the new Act have been satisfied and, therefore, all proceedings towards acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the old Act") ought to be deemed to have lapsed. Section 24 of the new Act reads as under:-

(3.) It is evident upon a plain reading of the above provisions that by virtue of sub-section (1) thereof, that, where no award under section 11 of the old Act has been made, the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the old Act would be governed by the provisions of the new Act relating to the determination of compensation. However, where an award has been made under section 11 of the old Act, then such proceedings would continue under the provisions of the old Act as if the old Act had not been repealed. This is, however, subject to the non-obstante provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 24 of the new Act which clearly stipulates that where an award under section 11 of the old Act has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the new Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. It is also stipulated that the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, can initiate the proceedings of land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of the new Act.