Full Judgment Text
2023 INSC 620
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4335 OF 2023
Delhi Development Authority … Appellant
versus
Jagan Singh & Ors. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Interlocutory Application No.37319 of 2022
1. We have recorded reasons for condoning the delay in the
main judgment.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
The first respondent filed a Writ Petition under Article 226
2.
of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi for
questioning the acquisition of the lands subject matter of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.07.13
17:22:31 IST
Reason:
Writ Petition. The acquisition was under the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’). The
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 1 of 13
notification under subSection (1) of Section 4 of the 1894 Act
rd
was issued on 23 June 1989, which culminated in an award
th
under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, which was made on 18 June
1992. In the meanwhile, in the year 1990, the first respondent
filed a Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings,
th th
which was dismissed on 20 May 2005. On 19 January 2006,
the appellant took over possession of the acquired land. With
st
effect from 1 January 2014, the 1894 Act was repealed and the
provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
th
(for short, ‘the 2013 Act’) were brought into force. On 25 May
2015, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition contending that in
view of subSection (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the
acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. By the impugned
th
judgment and order dated 11 August 2016, by relying upon a
decision of this Court in the case of
Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki &
1
Ors. , the High Court held that subSection (2) of Section 24 of
the 2013 Act will apply as the compensation has not been paid to
the first respondent although physical possession of the acquired
1 (2014) 3 SCC 183
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 2 of 13
land has been taken over by the appellant. The High Court,
however, directed the appellant to pay compensation to the first
respondent in accordance with the 2013 Act.
th
On 6 March 2020, a Constitution Bench of this Court in
3.
the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal &
2
expressly overruled its earlier decision in the case of
Ors. Pune
1
Municipal Corporation & Anr. and all other decisions based on
the said decision. It was held by the Constitution Bench that
another decision of this Court in the case of
Sree Balaji Nagar
3
Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. was
not correct. Even this decision was relied upon in the impugned
judgment.
The Constitution Bench in the case of
4. Indore Development
2
Authority interpreted subSection (2) of Section 24 of the 2013
Act. SubSection (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act reads thus:
“
24. Land acquisition process under Act
No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed
in certain cases.–
(1) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub
section (1), in case of land acquisition
2 (2020) 8 SCC 129
3 (2015) 3 SCC 353
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 3 of 13
proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),
where an
award under the said section 11 has been
made five years or more prior to the
commencement of this Act but the physical
possession of the land has not been taken or
the compensation has not been paid the
said proceedings shall be deemed to have
lapsed and the appropriate Government, if
it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings
of such land acquisition afresh in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Provided that where an award has been made
and compensation in respect of a majority of
land holdings has not been deposited in the
account of the beneficiaries, then, all
beneficiaries specified in the notification for
acquisition under section 4 of the said Land
Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.”
(emphasis added)
5. In paragraph 366.3 of the decision of the Constitution
2
Bench in the case of , it was
Indore Development Authority
held thus:
“ 366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
answer the questions as under:
366.1. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
366.2. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
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
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 4 of 13
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. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(emphasis added)
6. In the present case, as recorded in the impugned judgment,
there is no dispute that the possession of the acquired land was
th
taken over on 19 January 2006. Therefore, in terms of the
decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore
2
, subSection (2) of Section 24 of the
Development Authority
2013 Act will have no application even though the compensation
has not been paid.
7. Now, we propose to record reasons for condoning the delay.
The main question is whether the delay of 1231 days in
approaching this Court should be condoned. On factual aspects,
it must be noted that paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment
records that the acquired land has been utilised for the third
respondentDelhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) for its car
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 5 of 13
maintenance depot at Kalindi Kunj under the MRTS Project
th
(PhaseIII). By the order dated 17 February 2023, this Court
directed the appellant to file on record the present status of the
th
acquired land. Along with the affidavit filed on 13 April 2023,
photographs have been placed on record which are not disputed
by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
Therefore, we can proceed on the footing that the acquired land
has been utilised for a public purpose by DMRC for the metro
depot as correctly recorded in paragraph 2 of the impugned
judgment.
SUBMISSIONS
8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the acquired land has already been put to use for public
purposes. He urged that now the acquisition cannot be declared
as lapsed based on a decision which has been expressly
overruled. He urged that the reasons for the delay have been
properly explained.
The strong opposition by the first respondent to the
9.
application for condonation of delay is firstly on the ground that
for a long delay of 1231 days, there is absolutely no explanation.
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 6 of 13
His submission is that in fact, the conduct of the appellant as
well as the Government of NCT of Delhi shows that they
acquiesced to the impugned judgment. He submitted that while
dealing with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the
successful litigant has acquired valuable rights on the basis of
the judgment which is the subject matter of challenge. He
submitted that it is well settled that the Courts cannot adopt a
different approach while dealing with the applications for
condonation of delay made by the State or its agencies and
instrumentalities and that they should be treated on par with
other litigants. He submitted that merely because the judgment
1
in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. was
overruled by a subsequent judgment of the Constitution Bench,
the appellant cannot succeed unless the long delay is explained
by showing sufficient cause.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has
nd
relied upon the order dated 22 December 2017 of the appellant
which contains a policy dealing with the question of initiating
fresh acquisition proceedings where the acquisition has been
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 7 of 13
declared as lapsed under subSection (2) of Section 24 of the
2013 Act. He submitted that in view of the policy and since the
acquired land has been already utilised for public purposes, the
direction of the High Court in the impugned judgment to pay
compensation to the first respondent in accordance with the
2013 Act, needs to be upheld.
OUR VIEW
11. There cannot be any dispute about the proposition of law
canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent. However, there cannot be any hard and fast rule to
decide whether sufficient cause exists. It all depends on the facts
and circumstances of each individual case.
12. Over the years, this Court has repeatedly held that a liberal
and justiceoriented approach needs to be adopted in the matters
of condonation of delay so that the substantive rights of the
parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay. The power
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must be exercised in
a very meaningful manner which will serve the ends of justice.
13. It is true that the fact that the decision on which the
impugned judgment is based has been overruled is by itself no
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 8 of 13
ground to condone a long delay. In the facts of this case, it is
true that the Special Leave Petition has been filed two years and
three days after the date of the decision of the Constitution
2
Bench in the case of .
Indore Development Authority
14. In this case, admittedly, the acquired land has been used by
DMRC for the metro depot and the metro depot exists on the
acquired land as noted in the impugned judgment. Thus, when
the Writ Petition was filed invoking subSection (2) of Section 24
of the 2013 Act, the acquired land was already put to use for an
important public purpose of the metro depot. The use of the land
for public purposes for the last several years is certainly a
relevant factor for adopting a liberal approach while considering
the prayer for condoning the delay. We may also note here that
the petition invoking subSection (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act
was filed by the appellant nearly seventeen months after the
2013 Act came into force. In a case where the land was not put
to use for a public purpose, the approach of this Court while
deciding the application for condonation of a long delay in such a
case would have been different.
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 9 of 13
nd
15. The policy incorporated in the notification dated 22
December 2017 will apply to those cases where the acquisition
has been validly held to have lapsed. Therefore, in the facts of the
case, the said policy is of no help to the first respondent.
16. We find that the application for condonation of delay has
been drafted rather casually. However, considering the peculiar
facts of the case, which we have discussed above, by adopting a
justiceoriented and liberal approach, the delay will have to be
condoned.
17. The High Court has issued a direction to pay compensation
to the first respondent in terms of the 2013 Act. The said
direction was issued in the context of the fact that the Court was
declaring the acquisition as lapsed notwithstanding the fact that
the acquired land was already used for an important public
purpose. Once it is held that the acquisition under the 1894 Act
continues to be valid, the first respondent is disentitled to claim
compensation payable in terms of the 2013 Act which was not
applicable to the acquisition. However, the appellant is entitled to
receive compensation already determined under the award made
under the 1894 Act.
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 10 of 13
Before we part with the judgment, while looking at the
18.
photographs of the metro depot constructed on the acquired land
th
which have been produced along with an affidavit dated 15 April
2023, we noticed that a part of the pavement abutting the metro
depot which is a part of the acquired land has been already
occupied by “a car clinic” and other vendors. A citizen has lost
his valuable property by way of compulsory acquisition. The
compulsory acquisition has been made for a public purpose and
therefore, the appellant and all the concerned authorities cannot
allow the pavement to be used for any purpose except for
allowing people to walk. We hope and trust that either the
appellant takes immediate action on this behalf or calls upon the
authorities empowered to take action to do the needful
immediately in accordance with the law.
19. Though, the appeal succeeds, considering the conduct of
the appellant, we saddle the appellant with costs of ₹ 50,000/
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 11 of 13
20. Accordingly, we allow the Appeal on the following terms:
a. We quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order
th
dated 11 August 2016;
b. The Writ Petition (C) No.3819 of 2015 filed by the first
respondent before the High Court of Delhi stands dismissed;
c. We direct the appellant to pay costs quantified at ₹ 50,000/
to the first respondent within a period of one month from
today;
We direct the first respondent to furnish his Bank Account
d.
details along with a photocopy of a cancelled cheque of the
said account to the advocate for the appellant. The
appellant shall make online payment of the amount of costs
by transferring the same to the account of the first
respondent;
e. If the compensation determined as per the Award made
under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has not been yet paid till
date, the appellant and /or the second respondent shall pay
the same to the first respondent in the manner provided in
clause (d) as above within a period of one month from today.
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 12 of 13
We hope and trust that the appellant and all other
21.
concerned authorities shall take serious note of the observations
made by us in paragraph 18 above and take necessary action in
accordance with law.
………………….J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
..………………..J.
(Sanjay Karol)
New Delhi;
July 13, 2023.
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 13 of 13