Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8887 OF 2022
Lucknow Development Authority ..Appellant
Versus
Mehdi Hasan (Deceased) Thr. LRs. & Ors. ..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 03.07.2017 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Misc.
Bench No.4149 of 2006 by which the High Court has allowed
the said writ petition to the extent of Plot No.219, 1 bigha, 10
biswa and 10 biswansi, Village Malesemau, Tehsil & District
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2022.12.12
16:57:12 IST
Reason:
Lucknow and has declared that the acquisition with respect to
the said land is deemed to have lapsed under Sub-section (2)
1
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 Lucknow Development Authority has preferred the
present appeal.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respective parties including Shri R. Basant, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the subsequent purchasers
and having considered the decision of this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.,
(2020) 8 SCC 129 and as it is reported that the possession of
the land in question was already taken over in 2003, delay
caused in preferring the appeal condoned which as such was
already condoned vide earlier order dated 25.11.2022.
3. Before the High Court the original writ petitioners
questioned the acquisition proceedings in relation to separate
plots of land belonging to them, however during pendency of
the writ petition an application was filed in the writ petition
2
restricted to the plot no.219 only area 1 bigha, 10 biswa and
10 biswansi of village Malesemau, Tehsil & District Lucknow.
3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court and even taking into consideration the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 -
Collector and the Lucknow Development Authority filed before
the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on
behalf of the appellant - Authority that the possession of the
land in question was duly taken on 13.02.2003 by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer and was delivered to the Lucknow
Development Authority vide Possession Certificate dated
13.02.2003. It was also stated that the compensation has
now been deposited in the Court of District Judge under
Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Without
discussing anything on the possession taken by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer delivered to the Lucknow
Development Authority on 13.02.2003, thereafter the High
Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared the
acquisition with respect to the land in question deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the
ground that the compensation was not tendered/paid to the
3
original land owners under Section 30(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 2013 at the time when the Act, 2013 came
into force. However, the fact remains that the possession of
the land in question as per the Land Acquisition Officer and
the Lucknow Development Authority was duly taken on
13.02.2003 and was delivered to the Lucknow Development
Authority on 13.02.2003 itself. That once the possession was
taken much prior to Act 2013 came into force. As per the law
laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority (supra), it cannot be said that the land proceedings
are deemed to have lapsed. As per the law laid down by this
Court to attract Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions
of not taking possession and not tendering/payment of
compensation are required to be satisfied. As per the law laid
down by this Court in the aforesaid decision if one of the
conditions is not satisfied, the acquisition proceedings are not
deemed to have been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013.
3.2 In paragraph 366 the Constitution Bench of this Court
has observed and held as under:-
4
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 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
5
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,
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).
6
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.
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. In view of the above and as per the Special Land
Acquisition Officer as the possession was taken on 13.02.2003
7
and was handed over to the Lucknow Development Authority
on 13.02.2003 and in view of the decision of this Court in the
case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set
aside.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed.
The original writ petition filed before the High Court
stands dismissed.
No costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 12, 2022.
8