Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1300 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO. 3853 OF 2023)
(@ DIARY NO. 9801 OF 2022)
Land Acquisition Collector …Appellant(s)
Versus
Jai Prakash Tyagi & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
Petition (C) No. 2198 of 2015, by which, the High Court has
allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to the subject lands in question
comprised in Khasra Nos. 35/2/2 (6-04), 36/2/2 (4-13) and 40/2/2
(5-01) total measuring 15 bighas 18 biswa situated in revenue
estate of village Wazirabad are deemed to have lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.02.24
16:49:47 IST
Reason:
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
1
(hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Land Acquisition
Collector, New Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
and from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC (Land
Acquisition Collector) before the High Court, it appears that it was
the specific case on behalf of the LAC that the possession of
Khasra No. 35/2/2 measuring 6 bighas 04 biswa was taken over
on 22.09.1997; as regards Khasra No. 36/2/2 measuring 4 bighas
13 biswa possession was taken over in respect of 3 bighas of land
on 22.09.1997, however, the possession of 1 bigha 13 biswa out of
that Khasra could not be taken and so far as Khasra No. 40/2/2 is
concerned, the possession was not taken over. It was the case on
behalf of the LAC that the possession with respect to some portion
of the lands could not be taken over due to stay in writ petitions
Nos. 2506/1982 and 3631/1982. Despite the above and without
going into the controversy of physical possession, mainly relying
upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court
has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition
with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2
3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) which has been heavily relied upon by the
High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has
been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal
and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and in paragraphs 365
and 366, this Court has observed and held as under: -
“ 365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune
Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is
hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune
Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has
been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree
Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353]
cannot be said to be laying down good law, is
overruled and other decisions following the same are
also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v.
Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with
respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether
“or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed
for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot
prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present
judgment.
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 1-1-2014, the date
of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
3
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
non-deposit 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. Non-deposit of 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,
4
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 non-payment or
non-deposit 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 1-1-2014. The period of
subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to
be excluded in the computation of five years.
5
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. 1-1-2014. 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.”
4. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand,
the High Court has materially erred in declaring that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to the entire land i.e., 15 bigha 18 biswa
are deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and
applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) , the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside.
There shall be no deemed lapse with respect to the acquisition
proceedings of the lands in question under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013. Consequently, the writ petition preferred by the original
writ petitioner(s) before the High Court stands dismissed. However,
while allowing the present appeal, it is observed that if the original
6
land owners/recorded owners or the person(s) interested are not
paid the compensation, they may be paid the compensation with
respect to the lands in question in accordance with the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and their prayer(s) be considered
in accordance with law and on their own merits.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
FEBRUARY 24, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
7