Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2023
(@SLP (C) NO. 2486 OF 2023)
(@ DIARY NO. 23396 of 2022)
Delhi Development Authority …Appellant(s)
Versus
Narvada Devi 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. 3383 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein and has declared that
the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have
lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2023.02.09
16:10:33 IST
Reason:
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
1
2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development
Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.
2. Before the High Court, the respondent No. 1 – original writ
petitioner claimed the relief for a declaration that the acquisition
proceedings pertaining to land measuring 504 sq. yards out of Khasra
No.49/14 situated in the area of Village Pehladpur Bangar, National
Capital Territory of Delhi are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013 as neither physical possession of the subject land
has been taken nor the compensation has been tendered to the
petitioner.
2.1 Before the High Court and so stated in the counter affidavit, it was
the case on behalf of the appellant – DDA that as such the payment of
compensation in respect of the award amounting to Rs. 80,40,76,004/-
was released to L & B Department, GNCTD by cheque dated
09.08.2005. It was also the case on behalf of the DDA that the land
measuring area 457 Bigha 08 Biswa, Village Pehladpur Bangar is in
possession of the DDA but the remaining area is in illegal occupation in
the nature of residential houses, factories, Katha Jat along with
boundary wall and the steps are taken by the DDA to remove them but
on and off the land grabbers encroach upon the DDA land. It was also
the case on behalf of the appellant - DDA that so far as the original writ
2
petitioner is concerned, he has encroached on the Government land
claiming himself to be the owner.
2.2 Despite the above and without appreciating the reasons for not
taking the actual vacant possession of the remaining land, though as per
the possession proceedings dated 31.08.2005, physical possession of
the land measuring 457 Bigha was taken over and handed over to the
DDA, 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.
3. The view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (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:
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
3
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
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).
4
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
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.”
5
4. 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 stand taken by the DDA in the counter filed before the High Court,
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable.
4.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the High Court was
conscious of the fact that the actual physical possession is not capable
of being taken due to illegal occupation by the encroachers. Though,
the High Court has granted the declaration that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to the subject lands are deemed to have
lapsed, the High Court has observed that the original writ petitioner
would only be entitled to compensation as per Act, 2013.
4.2 As observed and held hereinabove, the original writ petitioner shall
not be entitled to the relief of declaration of lapsing of the acquisition
proceedings. Once that be so, there is no question of payment of any
compensation to the original writ petitioner as per the Act, 2013. Under
the circumstances also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court is unsustainable.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the
6
High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the original
writ petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 3383 of 2016 stands dismissed.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
FEBRUARY 09, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
7