The State Of Gujarat State Of Gujarat vs Jayantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel

// 1 // REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. /2023 (@SLP (C) NOS.34752­53 OF 2016)

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

JAYANTIBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL .. RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

judgment and order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the

High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil

Application No.9740/2012 by which the Division

Signature Not Verified Bench of the High Court of Gujarat has allowed the Digitally signed by R Natarajan

said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition Date: 2023.03.17 14:30:32 IST Reason:

with respect to the land in question is deemed to have // 2 // lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter

referred to as “Act, 2013”) as also the judgment and

order dated 01.04.2016 passed by the High Court of

Gujarat in Misc. Civil Application (For Review) No.3036

of 2015 in Special Civil Application No.9740/2012, the

State of Gujarat and others have preferred the present

appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nut­shell

are as under:

2.1 That, the respondent herein – original writ petitioner

was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.287

admeasuring 2 Hectare 37 Are 75 Sq. Mtrs. of village

Tarsava, Taluka Vaghodia, District Vadodara

(hereinafter referred to as “land in question”). A

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) came

to be issued on 11.04.1991 to acquire the land in

question alongwith adjacent agricultural lands for the // 3 // purpose of re­settlement of Narmada Project oustees.

That, thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the

Act, 1894 was issued on 06.02.1992. The respondent

herein – original land owner – original writ petitioner

entered into an agreement and a consent award was

passed on 11.06.1993. As per the agreement and the

consent award, initially 90% of the amount of

compensation was required to be paid to the land

owners and 10% amount was required to be paid

thereafter. However, it appears that the respondent –

land owner had second thought about the consent and

on 13.02.1995, he wrote to the Assistant

Commissioner, Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency

that the compensation may not be paid and the land in

question be released from acquisition. On such

application, the Assistant Commissioner passed an

order dated 07.03.1995, in which, he recorded that the

order was passed for payment of 90% of the

compensation, however, the land owner did not accept

such compensation. Thereafter, even the order of

payment of remaining 10% of compensation was also // 4 // passed however, the land owner – respondent herein

did not accept such compensation and that he has

now applied for cancellation of acquisition itself on the

ground that due to family disagreements, he is not

prepared to sell the land. Thereafter, nothing further

happened till 2009 and it appears that the land

owner/s continued to be in possession and continued

to cultivate the agricultural lands.

2.2 That, on 21.01.2009, the Assistant Commissioner,

Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency cancelled the

order dated 07.03.1995 by observing that the

acquisition of the land in question has been completed

and the land has been vested in Sardar Sarovar

Rehabilitation Agency and on basis of that affected

persons were allotted also and therefore, as per the

legal provision, once an order is passed, it is

mandatory to make the payment of compensation.

Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Sardar Sarovar

Rehabilitation Agency cancelled the earlier order dated

07.03.1995 and restored the order for 90% and 10% // 5 // amount of compensation as per the earlier orders

dated 05.05.1993 and 09.02.1994 (for payment of 90%

and 10% of the amount of compensation respectively).

Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 21.01.2009 of

the Assistant Commissioner, the Special Land

Acquisition Officer vide communication / letter dated

05.04.2010 conveyed to the respondent herein –

original land owner that his case for payment of

compensation is fixed on 16.04.2010 in the office of

Talati­cum­Mantri, Tarsava and therefore, he shall

remain present and receive compensation. That,

thereafter the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner

filed the writ petition for setting aside the consent

award dated 11.06.1993 passed under Section 11 of

the Act, 1894.

2.3 Before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of

respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner – land owner

that his request for withdrawal of the consent was

accepted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and

thereafter, no compensation was received and the // 6 // possession of the land in question was also not taken

over and therefore, many years later the authority

cannot implement the award by insisting on payment

of compensation.

2.4 In the meantime, Act, 2013 came into force with effect

from 01.01.2014 and therefore, Section 24(2) of the

Act, 2013 was pressed into service and it was

submitted on behalf of the land owner that as, neither

the compensation has been paid nor the possession of

the land in question is taken and that the land owner

continued to be in possession of the land in question,

the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed

under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.5 It was the case on behalf of the Acquiring Body and the

State Government that the land owner cannot

withdraw such consent once the award was passed. It

was also submitted on behalf of the Acquiring Body

and the State Government that merely because the

land owner did not accept the compensation would not // 7 // make any difference. It is submitted that once the

award was passed and a further order was passed to

pay the amount of compensation as per the consent

award, the same has to be implemented and therefore,

the Assistant Commissioner was justified in passing

the order dated 21.01.2009 which was communicated

by Land Acquisition Officer on 05.04.2010 asking the

land owner to receive the compensation, as originally

fixed.

2.6 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court

has set aside the order dated 05.04.2010 by observing

that such an order could not have been passed after a

period of 15 years having once accepted the request on

behalf of the land owner to cancel the acquisition.

Thereafter, the Division Bench of the High Court has

further passed an order that as, neither the

compensation is paid nor the possession is taken

and/or the original land owner continued to be in

possession and cultivating the land in question, the

acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under Section // 8 // 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Consequently, the Division

Bench of the High Court has allowed the said writ

petition by setting aside the land acquisition award

dated 11.06.1993 qua the land in question.

2.7 That, thereafter the Assistant Commissioner and

others filed the review petition before the High Court

against the observations made by the Division Bench

that possession has not been taken over. It was

pointed out that as such the possession was already

taken over by the Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation

Agency at the time of passing of the award. However,

the High Court has dismissed the review application.

2.8 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court in Special Civil Application as well as the

impugned order passed in Review Application are the

subject matter of present appeals.

3. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel appearing

for the State of Gujarat has vehemently submitted that

as such the issue involved in the present appeals viz. // 9 // Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case,

there shall be deemed lapse of acquisition under

Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is now not res integra in

view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this

Court in the case of Indore Development Authority

Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC

129.

3.1 It is submitted that in the present case there was a

consent award passed on 11.06.1993 and thereafter

the orders were passed to pay 90% and 10%

compensation vide orders dated 05.05.1993 and

09.02.1994. However, the original land owner did not

accept the compensation though offered and he

insisted for withdrawal of the acquisition. It is

submitted that therefore, thereafter vide order dated

07.03.1995, the order of compensation under the

award came to be cancelled.

3.2 It is submitted that however as Award under Section

11 of the Act, 1894 continued and amount of // 10 // compensation was to be paid under the consent

award / award, the Assistant Commissioner was

justified in passing the order dated 21.01.2009, which

was communicated to the original writ petitioner by

the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide

communication dated 05.04.2010.

3.3 It is submitted that once the award under Section 11

of the Act, 1894 was a consent award, the same could

not have been set aside by the High Court

subsequently on the ground that the compensation

under the Act, 1894 has not been paid for number of

years and that the land owner continued to be in

possession of the land in question. It is submitted that

as such it was the specific case on behalf of the

appellants before the High Court that it was the

original land owner who did not accept the

compensation offered and despite consent award, he

continued to cultivate the land forcibly. It is submitted

that even it was the specific case on behalf of the

appellants before the High Court that possession of the // 11 // land in question was taken over by drawing

panchnama at the time of passing of the consent

award. It is submitted that however the High Court

has not believed taking over the possession

considering the affidavit filed by the Assistant

Commissioner in which the Assistant Commissioner

stated that the land owner continued to cultivate the

land. It is submitted that however the High Court has

not considered the entire affidavit on possession in its

true perspective. It is submitted that as per the

decision of this Court in the case of Indore

Development Authority (Supra) taking over the

possession of land / open land by drawing the

panchnama is one of the mode which is legally

permissible. It is submitted that therefore the High

Court has materially erred in setting aside the award

dated 11.06.1993 under Section 11 of the Act, 1894

and also declaring that the acquisition with respect to

the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under

Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

// 12 //

3.4 Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, learned counsel appearing

for the appellants – State of Gujarat and Others has

further submitted that even otherwise in the facts and

circumstances of the case, there shall not be any

deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the

Act, 2013.

It is submitted that in the present case admittedly

pursuant to the consent award passed under Section

11 of the Act, 1894, the orders were passed to pay the

compensation to the land owner and the land owner

was called upon to come to the office of Talati­cum­

Mantri, Tarsava to accept the compensation. However,

the land owner refused to accept the compensation as

offered. It is submitted that once there was a refusal

on the part of the land owner to accept the

compensation though offered, there shall not be any

deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

3.5 It is further submitted that as observed and held by

this Court in the case of Indore Development // 13 // Authority (Supra), only in a case where there is a

lapse on the part of the Acquiring Body in not

tendering / paying the compensation, and not taking

over the possession, there shall be deemed lapse under

Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. It is submitted that in

the present case there was no lapse at all on the part

of the Acquiring Body and/or State Government in not

taking the possession and in not tendering / paying

the compensation. It is submitted that as such the

original land owner refused to accept the

compensation which has been recorded in the order

dated 07.03.1995.

Making above submissions and relying upon

decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the

case of Indore Development Authority (Supra), it is

prayed to allow the present appeals.

4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Nakul

Diwan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the contesting respondent – original writ petitioner –

original land owner.

// 14 //

4.1 It is prayed by Shri Diwan, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the original land owner that

before the High Court there was a challenge to the

subsequent communication dated 21.01.2009 by the

Assistant Commissioner communicated vide letter

dated 05.04.2010 by the learned Special Land

Acquisition Officer suo moto cancelling the earlier order

dated 07.03.1995. It is submitted that the said issue

has not been decided by the High Court and therefore,

the matter may be remanded to the High Court to

consider the legality and validity of the order dated

21.01.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and

the communication dated 05.04.2010 by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer calling upon the land owner to

remain present in the office of Talati­cum­Mantri,

Tarsava to receive / accept the compensation.

4.2 It is further submitted by Shri Diwan, learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the original land owner

that in the present case the original land owner

withdrew his consent and therefore, refused to accept // 15 // the compensation awarded under the consent award

and requested to withdraw the acquisition, which

came to be accepted by the Assistant Commissioner

vide order dated 07.03.1995 and the award was

cancelled. It is submitted that in that view of the

matter, thereafter, after a period of 15 years, it was not

open for the Assistant Commissioner to cancel the

order dated 07.03.1995 that too in exercise of suo

moto powers and without giving any opportunity of

hearing to the original land owner.

4.3 It is further submitted by Shri Diwan, learned senior

counsel that even otherwise when the original land

owner continued to remain in physical possession and

cultivating the land in question even for a period of 15

years after the consent award passed in the year 1993

and the compensation was not paid for number of

years, in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, there

shall be deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings. It is

submitted that therefore the Division Bench of the

High Court has not committed any error in setting // 16 // aside the consent award on the ground that the same

has not been implemented for number of years and

that the land in question is not used by the Acquiring

Body for the purpose for which it was acquired and the

High Court has rightly declared that the acquisition

with respect to the land in question is deemed to have

lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

Making above submissions, it is prayed to

dismiss the present appeals.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for

respective parties at length.

5.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that the original

award dated 11.06.1993 passed under Section 11 of

the Act, 1894 was a consent award with respect to the

land owned by the present respondent – original land

owner as well as other lands acquired for re­settlement

of Narmada Project oustees. It is also to be noted that

thereafter and pursuant to the consent award, the

amount of compensation (90% + 10%) was in fact // 17 // offered to the land owner and he was called upon to

accept the compensation offered, but the respondent –

original land owner refused to accept the

compensation offered and insisted to withdraw the

acquisition. It was the case on behalf of the appellants

before the High Court that the possession of the land

in question was taken by drawing spot panchnama at

the time of passing of the consent award. However, the

High Court has disbelieved the same by observing that

even as per the affidavit of the Assistant

Commissioner, the land owner continued to be in

possession of the land in question and continued to

cultivate the same. However, the affidavit which is

reproduced in the impugned judgment and order is

required to be considered in its true perspective and in

its entirety. In the affidavit dated 22.03.2013 filed by

one Shri Bhagora Kamlasingh Jokhanbhai on behalf of

the Assistant Commissioner, it was stated as under:

“6. I state that however the Petitioner refused to handover the land and to take compensation along with other similarly situated farmers whose land were also // 18 // acquired as per the Award dated 11.06.1993. The Petitioner along with other persons made an application dated 27.07.1993 for cancellation of the Award.

7. I state that by the order dated 07.03.1995, pursuant to the reluctance of the Petitioner to hand over the possession and to take the compensation on so called grounds of family disputes, the order of payment of compensation was cancelled, but at the same time, the order of acquisition was not cancelled. It appears that the Petitioner has successfully avoided to handover the possession of the land acquired under the provisions of Act though the land is vested in the Respondent No.3”

14. With regard to the averments made in para No.3.2 of the petition, I deny the same inasmuch as Petitioner refused to take the compensation and therefore, last notice was given to the Petitioner on 05.04.2010 and the Petitioner refused to accept the compensation, the same is now, deposited with the Government Treasury as stated hereinabove.

The Petitioner is, therefore, require to handover the possession of land to the Respondent No.3 so that the same can be allotted for rehabilitation of the affected persons of Narmada Project.”

5.2 Thus, from the aforesaid it can be seen that it was the

specific case on behalf of the appellants and the

Assistant Commissioner that the land owner refused to

hand over the land and refused to accept the // 19 // compensation alongwith other similarly situated

farmers whose lands were also acquired as per the

consent award dated 11.06.1993. It can also be seen

that it was the case on behalf of the appellants that by

order dated 07.03.1995, pursuant to the reluctance of

the land owner to hand over the possession (physical

possession) and to take the compensation on so­called

ground of family disputes, the order of payment of

compensation was cancelled. But at the same time,

the order of acquisition was not cancelled and that the

land owner successfully avoided to hand over the

possession of the land acquired under the provisions of

the Act, 1894 though the land vested in the Sardar

Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency.

5.3 Considering the aforesaid factual aspects it is required

to be considered whether there shall be deemed lapse

of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as

observed and held by the High Court ?

In the case of Indore Development Authority

(Supra), it is observed and held as under:

// 20 //

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)

(a) in case the award is not made as on 1­1­2014, 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.

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.

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 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.

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 non­deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not 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 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non­deposit of // 21 // 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 “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 24(2) due to non­payment or non­deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the 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 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 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 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 1­1­2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.

// 22 //

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. 1­1­2014. It does not revive stale and time­ barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow 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.”

5.4 Therefore, as per the law laid down by this Court in

the case of Indore Development Authority (Supra),

taking over the possession of the land by drawing

panchnama is held to be legally permissible and can

be said to be taking over the possession legally. In the

present case, there was a consent award under Section

11 of the Act, 1894. The possession was taken by

drawing the panchnama at the time of passing of the

consent award dated 11.06.1993. However, thereafter,

because of the reluctance on the part of the land

owner, he did not actually and physically hand over

the possession and he continued to cultivate the

acquired land which actually vested in the State // 23 // Government / Acquiring Body / Sardar Sarovar

Rehabilitation Agency.

6. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the

case, there shall not be any deemed lapse under

Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the

amount of compensation was not paid. It is an

admitted position that after the consent award, under

Section 11 of the Act, 1894, was passed on

11.06.1993, the amount of compensation was in fact

offered to the land owner alongwith other land owners

and the respondent – original land owner was called

upon to remain present in the office of Talati­cum­

Mantri to receive / accept the compensation. However,

the land owner refused to accept the compensation

though offered. In that view of the matter, once the

compensation was offered, which as such was offered

pursuant to the consent award under Section 11 of the

Act, 1894, but the land owner refused to accept the

same, how there can be any deemed lapse of

acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013? // 24 //

6.1 As per the law laid down by this Court in the case of

Indore Development Authority (Supra) and even

otherwise considering the object of providing the

deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the

Act, 2013 seems to be that if there is any lapse on the

part of the Acquiring Body / agency in not taking the

possession and not paying the compensation there

shall be deemed lapse of acquisition. Therefore, for a

deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013,

there shall be a lapse on the part of the Acquiring Body

/ beneficiary in not taking the possession and not

paying the compensation. In the present case, both the

conditions are not satisfied. In fact, the amount of

compensation under the consent award under Section

11 of the Act, 1894 was offered and the land owner

was called upon to accept the compensation however,

the land owner refused to accept the same. Even the

possession was taken by drawing the panchnama at

the time of declaration of the consent award under

Section 11 of the Act, 1894. However, thereafter, // 25 // because of the reluctance on the part of the original

land owner, the physical and actual possession of the

land could not be taken by the Acquiring Body. From

the aforesaid it can be seen that there was no lapse at

all on the part of the Authority neither in offering /

paying the compensation nor in not taking the

possession. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High

Court has materially erred in declaring that the

acquisition with respect to the land in question is

deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,

2013.

7. Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court in setting aside the award

dated 11.06.1993 on the ground that the award has

not been implemented for number of years and the

amount of compensation has not been paid for number

of years and the land is not utilized / used for number

of years is concerned, at the outset it is required to be

noted that it was the original owner who refused to

accept the compensation offered in the year 1993. // 26 // Therefore, an order dated 07.05.1993 was passed

cancelling the order of offering the compensation.

However, the acquisition and the consent award, both

continued. However, thereafter, the land owner

continued to make representations to release the land

from acquisition. Therefore, it was the original land

owner who did not accept the compensation offered

and continued to make representations to release the

land from acquisition. In these circumstances, the

Division Bench of High Court has committed a very

serious error in setting aside the consent award on the

aforesaid ground. The consent award under Section 11

of the Act, 1894 ought not to have been set aside in

the manner in which it is set aside. The High Court

has not at all properly appreciated and considered the

conduct on the part of the land owner. At this stage it

is required to be noted that at many places the High

Court has observed in paragraph 11 that “the

petitioner, alongwith other land owners of the area,

agreed to acquisition of his land on a fixed rate of

compensation”. Even the High Court has also taken // 27 // note of the fact that the amount of compensation was

offered but the original land owner refused to accept

the same. Once the land owner refuses to accept the

amount of compensation offered by the Acquiring

Body, thereafter it will not be open for the original land

owner to pray for lapse of acquisition on the ground

that the compensation has not been paid. As observed

hereinabove, there shall be deemed lapse of acquisition

under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 if there is a lapse

on the part of the Acquiring Body / beneficiary in not

taking the possession and the compensation is not

paid. Even otherwise as observed and held by this

Court in the case of Indore Development Authority

(Supra), for the deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of

the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking the

possession and not paying the compensation, both are

required to be satisfied. Therefore, if one of the

conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any

deemed lapse.

8. Now, so far as the prayer on behalf of the land owner // 28 // to remand the matter to the High Court to consider the

legality and validity of the subsequent order dated

21.01.2009 cancelling the earlier order dated

07.03.1995 is concerned, at the outset it is required to

be noted that the order dated 21.01.2009 was as such

not the subject matter of the writ petition before the

High Court. No prayer was made to set aside the order

dated 21.01.2009 passed by the Assistant

Commissioner, Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency.

What was challenged before the High Court was award

under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 and the subsequent

communication dated 05.04.2010 issued by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer calling upon the land

owner to remain present in the office of Talati cum

Mantri to accept the compensation and to release the

land. Be that as it may, assuming that the order dated

21.01.2009 was bad in law and the earlier order dated

07.03.1995 is restored, in that case also, it would not

have a bearing on the aspect of deemed lapse under

Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The fact remains that

though the amount of compensation was offered and // 29 // the original land owner was called upon to accept the

compensation as per the consent award, he refused to

accept the same.

9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,

present appeals succeed. Impugned judgment and

order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the High Court of

Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.9740/2012 and

the order dated 01.04.2016 passed in review

application being Misc. Civil Application (For Review)

No.3036 of 2015 in Special Civil Application

No.9740/2012 are hereby quashed and set aside. In

the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be

no order as to costs.

…………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J. (MANOJ MISRA) New Delhi, March 17, 2023