5.12.2017 The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

The Special Leave Petition preferred against the order dated 10.1.2008 was also dismissed on 11.7.2008. Thereafter, Writ Petition No.6389/2011 was filed by petitioner No.2 contending interalia that the forcible possession may not be taken from her. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.9.2011 with a direction to decide the question of possession by the competent authority. However, after passing the order by the Collector, District Vidisha on 23.11.2011, Writ Petition No.8060/2011 was filed by the petitioner No.2 challenging the same and also restraining the defendants to not to take forcible possession from her, which was decided by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2012. Against the said order, S.L.P No.18633/2012 was preferred and the same was also dismiseed vide order dated 13.7.2012. Thereafter, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter shall be referred to as '' Right to Fair Compensation Act '') has come into force with effect from 1.1.2014. However, taking the pretext of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act seeking appropriate directions of lapsing of the proceedings of the land acquisition to which the compensation was not paid, this 5 petition has been preferred alongwith other reliefs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have fairly contended that the possession of the land has been taken on 6.12.2000 and he is pressing upon this petition with respect to the second limb of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act that in case the compensation has not been paid then such proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. In support of the said contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation Versus Harakchand Mishrimal Solanki & Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, Delhi Development Authority Versus Sukhbir Singh & Others reported in (2016) 16 SCC 258, Government of NCT of Delhi Versus Manav Dharam Trust & Another reported in AIR 2017 SC 2450 and the Division Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Purushottam Lal & Others Versus State of M.P. & Others reported in 2016 (1) M.P.L.J

32. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Shri Murlidhar Raghu Jagtap Versus Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2017) 4 AIR Bom R 152 to contend that if the compensation has not been paid to the land owners then the proceedings under the Right to Fair 6 Compensation Act shall stand lapse. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not pressed the relief of challenging the land acquisition proceedings and confined the arguments to declare the lapsing of the proceedings on account of non-payment of amount of compensation.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1,2,3,5 contends that it is a case wherein the compensation has been determined to the land acquired and their owners were duly informed to receive such amount of compensation. Except the petitioners, most of the persons have received the amount of compensation. Except the petitioner Nos.1 and 2, none of the petitioner has raised any objection with respect to acquisition of their land in question. It is also contended that inspite of receiving the information and notice, they have not collected the amount of compensation though tendered to them. The petitioner No.1 has not challenged the land acquisition proceeding with respect to her land and submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act before the Court of Collector seeking prayer to make the reference to the competent Civil Court. Despite it, no amount of compensation has been received. It is further contended that after making challenge before the Civil Court and 7 thereafter before this Court in the writ petitions in two rounds of litigation when she remained unsuccessful and now filed this petition. The respondents questioning the conduct of the petitioner N0.2 in the matter of filing the litigation and not receiving the amount of compensation said, despite information and its deposit in the Court of Collector in terms of Section 18 of the old Land Acquisition Act no case seeking the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act is made out. It is contended that as per the letters Annexures R/1/1 to R/1/7 various informations were sent to receive the compensation but it was not responded so also the cheques were also tendered but not accepted by them, though its non-deposit in the Reference Court is not disputed thus said, after completing all the formalities, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any benefit. By filing the additional return, it is stated by learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1,2,3,5 that out of 22 persons, only the seven petitioners have not received the amount of compensation, therefore, they would not be covered within the word majority of the land holdings, who have not received the amount of compensation. Hence, this petition does not have any merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has reiterated all the facts and grounds as stated by learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1,2,3,5 and submitted that in the earlier round of litigation either before the Civil Court or before this Court, the petitioner No.2 remained unsuccessful and thereafter filing of this writ petition would not make her entitle to get the declaration of lapsing of the land acquisition proceeding in view of the guideline introduced by the Central Government, however, prayer is made to dismiss the petition.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Neema & Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 387 referred two issues for determination before the Larger Bench and considering the same, the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.939/2016 (M.P.Housing board Versus State of M.P & Others) vide order dated 10.8.2017 has admitted the appeal on account of the reference so also review pending before the Larger Bench, therefore, hearing of this case may be deferred till decision by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the review and the reference.

8. After having heard learned counsel for the parties at 9 length, first of all, the issue with respect to deferment of hearing raised by learned counsel for the respondents deserves consideration. In this regard, the questions posed for reference in the case of Yogesh Neema (supra) to the Larger Bench are relevant, however, reproduced as under:-

9. In the present case, the respondents in their return have not raised the said contentions. Insofar the order dated 10.8.2017 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in M.P.Housing Board's case (supra) is concerned, in the said case, this Court has deferred the hearing of writ appeal and admitted the same 10 because of the said reference and review of the judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). In the said context, it is to be noted here that the review in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) though filed, which has been attached with other cases as per order dated 21.11.2014 of the Apex Court. Thereafter, the Apex Court relying upon the judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) decided not less than fifty cases reiterating the principle as laid down in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). The Apex Court in the case of Sukhbir Singh (supra) has started the judgment in the following words:-

11. Now it is to be examined that in view of the provisions as contained in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, what recourse is permissible in the cases where the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act . In this regard, the provision of Section 24 is 13 relevant, which is reproduced as under:-

12. On perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that in case the land acquisition proceedings under the old Land Acquisition Act were initiated and the award has been made, it would be covered under Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act. In case an award has been passed under Section 11 then such proceedings would continue as per the old Land Acquisition Act as if the said Act has not been repealed. Sub-section (2) specifies that if an award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation Act but in case the twin conditions have not been satisfied i.e. of taking over of the physical possession of the land in question, or the compensation has not been paid then such proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the liberty is granted to the State Government that if it so chooses shall initiate the land acquisition proceedings afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act. Proviso to Section 24 makes it clear that if the award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of the land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries then all beneficiaries in the notification 15 for acquisition under Section 4 of the old Land Acquisition Act shall be entitled to the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act .

13. Considering the provision of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) observed that the acquisition under the old Land Acquisition Act be deemed to be lapsed if the compensation has not been paid to the land owners or the amount has not been deposited in the Court as specified in Section 31(2) of the Act. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-

14. In the case of Bharat Kumar Versus State of Haryana & Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 586, the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle of law holding that if physical possession of the land has not been taken and the award has been passed five year prior to the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, such case would fall within the purview of Section 24(2) of the said Act and the proceeding of the land acquisition was directed to be lapsed setting aside the order of the High Court refusing to grant such relief.

15. In the case of Bimla Devi Versus State of Haryana reported in 2015 (1) MPHT 288, the Apex Court has again relied upon the judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and explained the meaning of the word "paid", the Apex Court in Paragraph No.17 has observed as under:-

16. In the said case, the Apex Court has held that either the amount must be paid or it ought to be deposited in the Reference Court as specified in Section 31(2) of the old Land 21 Acquisition Act.

17. The Apex Court further relying upon the judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) decided number of cases reiterating same principle and some of them are Ram Kishan and others Versus State of Haryana and others reported in (2015) 4 SCC 347: Radiance Fincap Private Limited and others Versus Union of India and others reported in (2015) 8 SCC 544: Soorajmull Nagarmull Versus State of Bihar and others reported in 2015 (9) Scale 1: Working Friends Cooperative House Building Society Limited Versus State of Punjab and others decided on 12.10.2015:

18. In the case of Sukhbir Singh (supra), the Apex Court is having an occasion to consider the scope of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act in the light of the judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). In the context of the land acquisition proceeding, the Apex Court has considered the scheme of the old Land Acquisition Act and in Paragraph No.9, and observed that the Collector after an inquiry has to make an award specifying the necessary ingredients of Section 11 of the Act. As 22 soon as the award is made, under Section 12(2) of the Act, the Collector has to give immediate notice of the award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally; if the said provision is read with Section 31 of the Act, it would make clear that under the statutory scheme, the Collector is to tender payment of compensation awarded by him to the persons who are interested and entitled thereto, according to the award, on the date of making the award itself. Meaning thereby, the Collector must be armed with the amount of compensation payable to persons interested as soon as the award is made. Such persons have to be paid the sum mentioned in the award. It is well settled that the award is an offer, which may be accepted or rejected by the claimants on tendering the amount. Thus, it is incumbent on the Collector to make the payment as soon as possible after the award. In case a person interested refuses or does not consent to receive the money payable or there be no person competent to alienate the land or if there is any dispute as to title to receive compensation or its apportionment, the Collector ought to deposit the amount of compensation in the Reference Court. It is only after these steps have been taken then the Collector may take possession of the land, which shall vest the land absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. In case the said 23 procedure has not been followed, the interest is payable @ 10% for one year and 15% thereafter. In the said case, the Apex Court has further referred various judgments wherein the said scheme has been adverted to by the Apex Court. Thereafter, reference of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act has been considered and in Paragraph No.13, the Apex Court has emphasized the instinct of Section 24(2) and thereafter in Paragraph Nos.14 & 15 referring various paragraphs of the judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) reiterated the same principle as laid down in the said case.

19. This Court is also having an occasion to consider the said issue in the case of Parasram Pal & another Versus Union of India and others reported in 2016 (1) MPLJ 649 wherein after understanding the meaning of "offer" "tendered" "paid" in the context of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, held that if the possession has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid even after five year from the date of award passed prior to commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation Act , the land acquisition proceeding shall be deemed to have lapsed. In this view of the matter, the legal position reiterated by various judgments with respect to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair 24 Compensation Act is crystallized holding that on the date of commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation Act if the award is passed five year prior from the said date and the compensation has not been paid, the land acquisition proceeding shall be deemed to have lapsed. In addition, as per Sukhbir Singh (supra), for the judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), the principle of stare decisis applies.

20. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the old Land Acquisition Act was issued on 15.12.1995 and the final notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in the gazette on 10.1.1996 and the final award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Vidisha on 16.8.1999 vide Annexure R/1 determining the total compensation to the land holders. As per the return filed by the respondent Nos.1,2,3,5/State, it is apparent that except the petitioners, the remaining land owners have received the amount of compensation, however, it is not disputed that the petitioners have not received the amount of compensation. Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act deals with the lapsing of the proceedings and it is having nothing to do with respect to the challenge made earlier and it would not have any impediment in case in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners 25 have challenged the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the old Land Acquisition Act on very many grounds while infact lapsing of the proceedings is different than the challenge made to the land acquisition proceedings. In this regard, the guidance can be taken from the judgment of Government of NCT of Delhi Versus Manav Dharam Trust (supra).

21. The Apex in Paragraph Nos.20,21,22,23 of Manav Dharam Trust (supra) has held thus:-

But in the present case, the challenge is not to the acquisition proceedings; it is only for a declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of the operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and therefore, the ratio in those cases has no application to these cases.

22.It is one thing to say that there is a challenge to the legality or propriety or validity of the acquisition proceedings and yet another thing to say that by virtue of operation of a subsequent legislation, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.

23.In all the decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, which we have referred to above, this Court has protected the rights of the subsequent purchaser to claim compensation, being a person interested in the compensation, despite holding that they have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings.'' 27

22. Now reverting to the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents that after acquisition of the land, the construction of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has already been raised, however, in case of lapsing, the said construction is required to be demolished and it will cause serious prejudice to them.

23. Similar issue has been raised and dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Versus Kusham Jain and others reported in (2016) 16 SCC 254 in the context of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act wherein in Paragraph Nos.6,7,8,9,10, the Apex Court has answered the said issue, however, it is reproduced thus:-

Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment 28 under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:

24. In the present case, the relief is pressed upon for declaration of lapsing of the land on account of non-payment of the amount of compensation, which was considered in the case of Rattan Singh (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-

25. At this stage, it is also relevant to deal the argument of the respondents regarding tender of the amount by way of cheque though not received by the petitioners and the amount remained in the account of the Land Acquisition Officer. The said issue has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Purushottam Lal (surpa) and the Court has held thus:-

26. In the case of Purushottam Lal (supra), the similar defence was taken as revealed from Paragraph No.4 and thereafter from Paragraph No.8, the Division Bench of this Court has answered thus:-

27. In view of the aforesaid, the argument as advanced by learned counsel for the respondents with respect to filing of the civil suit and challenging the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the old Land Acquisition Act by filing the various writ petitions and tendering the amount of cheque are having nothing to do with the relief claimed in this petition regarding lapsing of the proceedings after commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation Act , in case the amount of compensation has not been paid as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act.

28. As discussed in the above referred various precedents, this Court relying upon the judgments of the Apex Court has clarified that the deposit of the amount must be in the Reference Court and mere deposit of the said amount with the Land Acquisition Officer is not sufficient, therefore, the stand taken in the return in this regard is hereby rejected. Under such circumstances, it is apparent that the compensation has not been paid to the petitioners as per the undisputed facts of this case and the plea of deposit of the amount with the Land Acquisition Officer 37 or the Collector has not been found in conformity to the provisions of the Old Land Acquisition Act and various judgments of the Apex Court, therefore, it is to be held that the proceedings with respect to the land in question belonging to the petitioners pertaining to Khasra Nos.22,23,24,25,30,31/1,31/2 situated at Village Mirjapur of Tahsil and District Vidisha acquisitioned by the State Government vide notification issued under Section 4 of the old Land Acquisition Act on 15.12.1995 and the final notification issued under Section 6 of the Act published in the Gazette on 10.1.1996 shall stand lapsed.

29. At this stage, to advert the argument advanced by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1,2,3,5 relying upon the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act; it is seen, the proviso makes it clear that in case where an award has been made and the compensation in respect of majority of the land holding has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries then all the beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Old Land Acquisition Act would be entitled to the compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation Act . As per the stand taken in the additional return filed by the respondent/State, it is clear that the petitioners do not come within the purview of the majority of the 38 land holders to whom the amount have not been deposited in their accounts. Thus, looking to the defence taken in the additional return, the proviso cannot be invoked on the basis of the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1,2,3,5 contrary to their own stand.

30. As the petitioners have not pressed the relief of quashing the land acquisition proceedings and merely pressed upon the relief of lapsing as per Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove. Therefore, it is declared that the proceedings with respect to the land in question belonging to the petitioners pertaining to Khasra Nos.22,23,24,25,30,31/1,31/2 admeasuring 0.249, 2.530, 0.958, 0.314, 0.497, 0.313, 0.627 hectare respectively situated at Village Mirjapur of Tahsil and District Vidisha acquisitioned by the State Government vide notification issued under Section 4 of the old Land Acquisition Act on 15.12.1995 and the final notification issued under Section 6 of the Act published in the Gazette on 10.1.1996 shall stand lapsed.

31. Consequently, this petition succeeds and is hereby 39 allowed in part in view of the foregoing. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their cost.

(J.K.MAHESHWARI) JUDGE amit