Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2914 OF 2022
Agra Development Authority, Agra ..Appellant
Versus
Anek Singh and others ..Respondents
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 Judicature at
Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.13927 of 2016
by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition
preferred by the respondents herein original writ petitioners and
has held that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land
in question shall be deemed to have lapsed under Subsection (2)
of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jatinder Kaur
Date: 2022.05.20
17:14:34 IST
Reason:
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’),
1
the Agra Development Authority, Agra has preferred the present
appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
We have perused and considered the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court.
3. Before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of
the Agra Development Authority – appellant herein that as such
the possession of the land in question was already taken over
and even the name of the Authority was mutated in the revenue
records. It was also the specific case on behalf of the Authority
that possession of the land in question was with them but the
original writ petitioners illegally occupied it again. It was also the
case on behalf of the Authority that the development works have
already been carried out on the land in question and the entire
compensation had already been deposited with the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. It was also the case on behalf of the
Authority that the original writ petitioners deliberately did not
take the compensation for the remaining plot measuring 6 Biswa
and 15 Biswansi and therefore, on account of the fault of the writ
petitioners, the acquisition proceedings cannot lapse. However,
by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has held
2
and declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the
land in question shall be deemed to have lapsed under sub
section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the
amount of compensation was not actually paid to the land
owners. While holding so the High Court has relied upon and
considered the decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and another versus Harakchand
reported in
Misirimal Solanki and others (2014) 3 SCC 183.
3.1 Thus, while passing the impugned judgment and order the
High Court has solely relied upon the decision of this Court in
the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and other
decisions in which the decision in the case of
Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) was followed. (Para 12 of the impugned
judgment and order)
However, the decision of this Court in the case of
Pune
Municipal Corporation (supra) has been subsequently over
ruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others,
3
2020) 8 SCC 129 . In paragraph 366 it is observed and held as
under:
“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 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
4
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 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).
366.9. 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
5
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.
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.”
4. In view of the above Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra ) and
the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) has been specifically overruled by this
Court, which has been relied upon by the High Court while
passing the impugned judgment and order, the same passed by
the High Court is unsustainable and it deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
4.1 In view of the decision of this Court in the case of
Indore
Development Authority (supra) and considering the facts and
circumstances narrated hereinabove, it cannot be said that the
6
acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed under the provisions of the Act, 2013.
5. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated
above present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the writ petition preferred by the original writ
petitioner before the High Court stands dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs.
…………………………………J.
(M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi,
May 20, 2022.
7