Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 342 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO. 11767 OF 2019)
Delhi Development Authority …Appellant(s)
Versus
Shakuntla Devi and 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. 5053 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner
and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with
regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Signature Not Verified
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2023.01.20
16:12:11 IST
Reason:
referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority has
preferred the present appeal.
1
2. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act,
1894 was issued on 27.06.1996. The Award was also passed vide
Award dated 22.06.1999. According to the Land Acquisition Collector
(LAC) and as per the counter affidavit filed by the LAC before the High
Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the original
respondents that the actual vacant peaceful possession of the subject
land falling in Khasra No. 759(4-16) was taken on 31.12.2013 in which
th
the original writ petitioner is having 1/4 joint share, i.e., admeasuring 1
bigha on the spot and handed over to the requisition agency by
preparing proper possession proceedings on the spot. Despite the
above and without further commenting upon the taking over of the
possession, thereafter, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and
has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed on the ground that the compensation has not
been paid/tendered to the original writ petitioner. However, as observed
hereinabove, the High Court has not disputed and/or taken into
consideration the taking over of the possession by the LAC and handing
over to the beneficiary by drawing the panchnama on the spot on
31.12.2013.
3. The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the
decision of the Constitution bench of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 .
2
In paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has 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 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 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
3
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).
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
4
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. 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 deserves to be quashed and set aside and is
accordingly quashed and set aside.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
JANUARY 20, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
5