Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO. 1586 OF 2023)
(@ DIARY NO. 32640 OF 2022)
Delhi Development Authority …Appellant(s)
Versus
Nem Chand Sharma 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. 3446 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition preferred by the original writ petitioners – respondents herein
and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2023.02.18
12:25:07 IST
Reason:
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
1
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority has
preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court.
2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,
it appears that though the High Court has observed and believed the
case on behalf of the appellant and the Government of NCT of Delhi that
the possession of the land in question was taken over, still, 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 under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that it is not clear as
to what compensation was paid and if so, who raised the dispute and
whether the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894 were
satisfied in accordance with the prevailing procedure. While passing the
impugned judgment and order, the High Court has heavily relied upon
the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,
(2014) 3 SCC 183 . However, it is required to be noted that the decision
of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
2
(supra) has been subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 .
2.2 Apart from the above, even in the case of Indore Development
Authority (supra) , the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed
and held that for attracting the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013, twin conditions of not taking over of possession and not
tendering/paying the compensation are to be satisfied and if one of the
conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any deemed lapse of
acquisition. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the
possession of the land in question was taken and handed over to the
beneficiary department initially on 27.12.1990 and thereafter the
remaining 1 bigha was taken and handed over to the beneficiary
department on 09.02.2007. In the case of Indore Development
Authority (supra) 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 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
3
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
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
4
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).
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
5
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.”
3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the Constitution Bench
decision in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) , the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and
is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
JANUARY 20, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
6