Full Judgment Text
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.280 of 2023
(@ SLP (C) No. 1019 of 2023)
(@ Diary No.32601 of 2022)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi ..Appellant
Versus
Sunil Jain & 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 17.07.2017 passed by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2989
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.01.13
16:29:10 IST
Reason:
of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
1
petition preferred by the private respondents herein –
original writ petitioners and has declared that the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the Government of NCT of
Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. Having gone through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court and para 5, it appears that
the original writ petitioners being the subsequent
purchasers of the land in question they do not derive any
right or title to the land at the time of Award and thereafter
cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, it
was the specific case that the original petitioners had no
locus to file the writ petition and seek any relief with respect
to the acquisition. From the counter filed before the High
Court it appears that it was also the case on behalf of the
2
appellant and so stated in the counter affidavit that the
possession of the land in question could not be taken over
due to the pending litigation which ended upto this Court
upholding the acquisition proceedings. However, thereafter
and despite the above and without even considering the
locus of the original writ petitioners to challenge the
acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition, solely relying upon
the fact that the possession has not been taken over and the
compensation is not paid and relying upon the decision of
this Court in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation and
Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014)
3 SCC 183, 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.
2.1 Now so far as the locus of the original writ petitioners
being subsequent purchasers is concerned, the said issue is
now not res integra in view of the decision of the three Judge
3
Bench of this Court is the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs.
which has been
Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229
subsequently followed by this Court in the case of Delhi
Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building
vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022
and Delhi Development Authority versus Godfrey
Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022. In
the aforesaid decisions this Court has specifically observed
and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to
challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition.
In that view of the matter the High Court has materially
erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the writ
petitioners subsequent purchasers and declaring that the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed.
2.2 Even otherwise on merits also the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
4
Before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of
the appellant that the possession could not be taken over
due to the pending litigation initiated by the original land
owners challenging the acquisition which ended upto this
Court. As observed and held by this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and
reported in the period during the
others (2020) 8 SCC 129
stay is to be excluded. If the acquiring body/beneficiary was
not able to take the possession due to pending litigation in a
proceeding initiated by the land owner, thereafter the land
owner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of
the same and thereafter to contend that as the possession is
not taken over (may be due to the pending litigation) still
they are entitled to benefit of lapse.
2.3 Even the decision of this Court in the case of
Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) which has been
relied upon by the High Court, has been subsequently
5
specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus
Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. 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:
Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a)
366.1.
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.
In case the award has been passed
366.2.
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
6
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 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.
7
The proviso to Section 24(2) of the
366.6.
2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2),
not part of Section 24(1)(b).
The mode of taking possession under
366.7.
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.”
8
3. In view of the above and for the reason stated above,
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 set aside. Consequently, the
original writ petition filed by original writ petitioners praying
for lapse of the acquisition proceedings accordingly stands
dismissed.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 13, 2023.
9