Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8992 OF 2022
(@ SLP (C) NO.22130 OF 2022)
(@ DIARY NO.30174 OF 2022)
Land Acquisition Collector (South East) …Appellant
Versus
Dharamvir & 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 25.04.2016 passed by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 4576 of
2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2022.12.09
15:43:24 IST
Reason:
petition preferred by the respondents herein and has declared
that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land
1
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 “Act, 2013”), the Land Acquisition
Collector (South East), Delhi Government has preferred the
present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court it appears that though it was submitted before the
High Court that the possession of the land in question was
taken on 16.03.2004, however thereafter 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 and by observing that the
compensation with respect to the land in question has not
been paid, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition
and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2.1 However, it is required to be noted that the decision of
this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and
2
Anr. (supra) relied upon by the High Court while passing the
impugned judgment and order has been specifically overruled
subsequently by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the
case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal
and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. 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 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 112014, the
date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no
3
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.
The expression “paid” in the main part of
366.4.
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 nondeposit with
respect to the majority of holdings for five years or
more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be
4
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).
The provisions of Section 24(2) providing
366.8.
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.
5
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
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. In view of the above Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in the case of the 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. The original Writ
Petition (C) No. 4576 of 2015 stands dismissed. No costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 9, 2022.
6