Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8196 OF 2022
(@ Diary No. 24980 of 2022)
The Secretary, The Department of
Land and Building and Ors. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Anjeet Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Anr. …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. 203 of 2015 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 comprised in Khasra
No. 156 admeasuring 2 bighas, 4 biswas in village Lado Sarai, New
Delhi, is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2022.11.24
12:53:50 IST
Reason:
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the
1
Department of Land and Building and the Land Acquisition Collector
have preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants and Shri Rishab Nagar, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1(i) to 1(iv).
3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the
acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 1986. The award under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was declared on 14.09.1986. According
to the appellants, the possession of the land in question was taken on
22.09.1986.
3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,
it appears that relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Jagjeet
Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 960 of
2015 , which was also with respect to Khasra No. 156 admeasuring 2
bighas, 4 biswas in village Lado Sarai, New Delhi, by which the High
Court allowed the said writ petition preferred by the landowners and
declared that the acquisition with respect to the said land is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the High Court has
allowed the present Writ Petition (C) No. 203 of 2015 and has disposed
2
of the same in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 960 of
2015.
3.2 However, from the judgment and order passed by the High Court
in Writ Petition (C) No. 960 of 2015 in the case of Jagjeet Singh &
Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. , it appears that the High Court has
heavily relied 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. The High Court in the said
case, i.e., Jagjeet Singh & Ors. (supra), without going into the
controversy of physical possession had declared that the acquisition with
respect to the said land is deemed to have lapsed as the compensation
with respect to the land in question has not been tendered to the
recorded owner. However, it cannot be disputed that the decision of this
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has
been subsequently specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of
this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.
3.3 However, it is the case on behalf of the respondent Nos.1(i) to 1(iv)
that the Civil Appeal against the decision of the Delhi High Court in the
case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. (supra) has been dismissed by this Court
by common judgment and order dated 04.05.2017 and even the review
3
application has been dismissed and therefore, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court may not be interfered with by this
Court. However, it is required to be noted that when Civil Appeal No.
6250 of 2017 in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. (supra) came to be
dismissed, the law was not settled, which has ultimately been settled by
the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) and therefore, the decision of this
Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. (supra) shall not be of any
assistance to the respondents in view of the law laid down by this Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). It is required to
be noted that the review application has been dismissed on the ground
of delay and not on merits.
3.4 Now on merits, it was the specific case on behalf of the authority
that the possession of the land in question was already taken over on
22.09.1986. However, thereafter without entering into the question of
possession, the High Court has declared that the acquisition with respect
to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013 as the compensation with respect to the land in question was
not paid. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) for the purpose of deemed lapse of
land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both
4
the conditions namely the possession of land has not been taken over
and the compensation not paid are required to be satisfied. As observed
and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra) , if one of the conditions are not satisfied, there cannot be any
lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In paragraphs
365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) 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:
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.
5
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.
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
6
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).
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
7
proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the
treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”
3.5 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case,
the compensation was not paid to the landowners in view of the fact that
there was ownership dispute between the co-owners with respect to
compensation. In paragraph 6 (vi), the respondents have admitted the
same, which reads as under:-
“…………………….Admittedly, as per the available record,
i.e., Naksha Muntazmin, the compensation inclusive of
solatium and interest up to 16th Sept 1986 was ordered not
to be paid on account of dispute amongst the claimants.
And nor was the corpus deposited in the Reference Court
as per the provisions of the Act.”
3.6 Therefore, if the compensation has not been paid due to inter se
dispute between the co-owners, thereafter, it will not be open for the
respondents – landowners to make a grievance that once the
compensation was not paid, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.
In any case, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) , 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 judgment and order passed by the
High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 203 of 2015 declaring that the
8
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
NOVEMBER 24, 2022. [M.M. SUNDRESH]
9