Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8993 OF 2022
(@ SLP (C) No. 22129 OF 2022)
(@ DIARY NO.22284 OF 2022)
Delhi Development Authority ..Appellant
Versus
Raj Singh & Anr. ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.10800
of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said Writ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2022.12.09
15:43:23 IST
Reason:
Petition and has declared that the land acquisition
1
proceedings with respect to the land in question under Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 is deemed to have lapsed under Sub
section (2) of Section 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 Delhi Development Authority has preferred the
present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court it appears that though in the counter affidavit filed
before the High Court filed by the Land Acquisition Collector it
was stated that the possession was taken on 19.01.2006.
However, the details of the payment of compensation are not
available with the LAC Branch and therefore it is not possible
to state anything about payment of compensation, the High
Court has allowed the Writ Petition and has declared that the
land acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed under Subsection (2) of Section 24 of
the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the amount of
compensation was not paid to the land owners.
2
2.1 Now it is required to be noted that before the High Court
it was stated on behalf of the DDA that it released a sum of
Rs.10 crores to the Land and Building Department way back
on 28.08.1990 in respect of the land acquired. Therefore, the
High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that
the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in
question is deemed to have lapsed under subsection (2) of
Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the
compensation was not actually paid to the land owners.
3. The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable in
view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the
case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and
Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the
Constitution Bench of 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
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 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
4
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.
The expression “paid” in the main
366.4.
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 compensation (in court)
does not result in the lapse of land acquisition
proceedings. In case of nondeposit 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
5
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.
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 timebarred claims and does not
6
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. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable and deserves to be
quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set
aside.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed.
The original writ petition filed by respondent no.1 herein
filed before the High Court being W.P.(C) No.10800 of 2016
stands dismissed.
No costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 9, 2022.
7