Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5439 OF 2022
Union of India & Anr. ..Appellants
Versus
Subhash Chander Sehgal & 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 01.03.2016 passed by the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.1648 of 2015
whereby the High Court has declared that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to the subject land had lapsed in terms
of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.08.22
17:32:50 IST
Reason:
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’),
1
the Union of India through Land Acquisition Collector and
Another have preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. S.K. Rout, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4.
3. The undisputed facts are that in the present case, the
possession of the land in question was already taken over by the
appropriate authority in the year 1987. It is also an admitted
position that the subject land has been utilized way back in the
year 1987 for a park by East Delhi Municipal Corporation.
However, despite the above and relying upon the decisions of this
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another
reported in
versus Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others
(2014) 3 SCC 183 and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential
Association vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 3 SCC 353, the
High Court has declared that the acquisition proceedings in
respect of the subject land had lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013.
3.1 In a subsequent decision, a Constitution Bench of this
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus
2
Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 has specifically over
ruled the decisions of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential
Association (supra) . 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
3
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 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 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
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.
4
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 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.”
5
3.2 In such a situation no relief of lapse of acquisition
proceedings can be countenanced in this case in view of the law
laid down by this Court in the case of
Indore Development
Authority (supra) . Once it is held that there is no lapse of
acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the
land which has stood vested with the appellant continues to do.
Also, there is no question of payment of any compensation to the
writ petitioners in respect of the suit land as per the Act, 2013.
However, the original writ petitioners shall be entitled to
compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per
Award No.102/198687 dated 19.09.1986 as referred to by the
High Court in para 3 of the impugned judgment and order or in
the event any enhancement is sought by the original writ
petitioners in accordance with law.
3.3 In view of the above and for the reason stated above, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
declaring that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the
subject land has lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and directing the
6
authorities to pay the compensation to the writ petitioners in
respect of the suit land as per Act 2013 deserves to be quashed
and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the writ petition filed by the private respondents
before the High Court stands dismissed.
Present Appeal is accordingly allowed. However, 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,
August 22, 2022.
7