Full Judgment Text
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.943 of 2023
(@ SLP (C) No.3117 of 2023)
(@ Diary No.32553 of 2022)
Delhi Development Authority ..Appellant
Versus
Jagan Singh & Ors. ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
Signature Not Verified
judgment and order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the High
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.02.17
17:06:45 IST
Reason:
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3164
1
of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein – original
writ petitioner and has 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 ‘the Act
2013’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the
present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court and even as per the finding recorded by the High
Court in para 3, the physical possession of the subject land
was admittedly taken on 16.07.2007. However, thereafter
relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183
and on the ground that the compensation has not been paid
to the original petitioner, the High Court has allowed the
2
said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with
respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed.
2.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the earlier
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 . In the said decision it is
(2020) 8 SCC 129
specifically observed and held that once the possession was
taken over there shall not be deemed to have lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of
this Court has observed and held as under:
“ Resultantly, the decision rendered in
365.
Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is
3
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.
In case the award has been passed
366.2.
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
4
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 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 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
nonpayment or nondeposit of compensation in
5
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.
The proviso to Section 24(2) of the
366.6.
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
6
i.e. 112014. 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. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra) and applying the
same to the facts in the case on hand the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that
the acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable. Consequently, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in
question is deemed to have lapsed is hereby quashed and
set aside.
7
The original writ petition preferred by the respondent –
original writ petitioner filed before the High Court stands
dismissed.
Present appeal is allowed. No costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
..……………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
………………………………….J.
[SANJAY KAROL]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 17, 2023.
8