Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.942 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO.3116 of 2023)
(@ DIARY NO.28432 OF 2022)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. … Appellants
Versus
Dhannu & Anr. …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 16.11.2017 passed by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3158 of
2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
Signature Not Verified
petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein – original writ
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.02.17
17:06:43 IST
Reason:
petitioner (now represented through his heirs) and has
1
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 “Act, 2013”), the Government of
NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court it appears that while allowing the writ petition the
High Court has relied upon and/or followed the earlier
decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki
on the ground that the
and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183
possession of the subject land could not be taken. It is
required to be noted that before the High Court it was the
specific case on behalf of the appellant that the land belongs
to Gram Sabha and therefore the original writ petitioner had
no locus to pray for declaration that the acquisition with
respect to subject land is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, without deciding the
question of ownership and keeping the same open, the High
2
Court has entertained the said writ petition preferred by the
respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner. At this stage, it is
required to be noted that even before the High Court the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ
petitioner did not dispute that the land belongs to Gram
Sabha. In that view of the matter when the land belongs to
Gram Sabha which was even admitted on behalf of the
original writ petitioner, the High Court ought not to have
entertained the said writ petition at the instance of the
original writ petitioner who was not even the recorded owner.
Even the question with respect to the compensation to be paid
would arise only in favour of recorded owner and/or in favour
of a person who had a title.
2.1 Even otherwise it is required to be noted that 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 specifically overruled by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of
Indore
Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others
reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366,
3
the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as
under:
“ Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune
365.
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.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
366.
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.
4
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
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
5
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 112014. The period of
subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to
be excluded in the computation of five years.
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not
366.9.
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
6
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) and as observed
hereinabove that the land belongs to Gram Sabha which was
admitted on behalf of the original writ petitioner and the
original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner and/or
even the owner, the High Court ought not to have entertained
the writ petition. 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. No costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
………………………………….J.
[SANJAY KAROL]
7
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 17, 2023.
8