Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2934 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO. 8134 OF 2023)
(@ DIARY NO. 21836 OF 2022)
Delhi Development Authority …Appellant(s)
Versus
Shiv Raj & 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. 8081 of 2015
by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition
and has declared that the acquisition with regard to the
Signature Not Verified
land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.04.19
16:53:51 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 8
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 Delhi Development Authority has preferred the
present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on
behalf of the appellant before the High Court and even so
stated in the counter filed before the High Court that the
possession of the land in question was taken over on
21.04.2006. However, thereafter 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 said 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 with
respect to the land in question had not been paid.
2.1 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) , which has
been relied upon by the High Court while passing the
impugned judgment and order, has been specifically
overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the
Page 2 of 8
case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal
and Ors., (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:
Page 3 of 8
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.
Page 4 of 8
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 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
Page 5 of 8
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
Page 6 of 8
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 case
of Indore Development Authority (supra) to the facts of
the case on hand and the fact that the possession of the
land in question was taken over on 21.04.2006, there
shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition as observed
and held by the High Court. Under the circumstances, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
is unsustainable.
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, present appeal succeeds. The impugned
Page 7 of 8
judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby
quashed and set aside. There shall not be any deemed
lapse of acquisition with respect to the land in question.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
APRIL 19, 2023. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]
Page 8 of 8