Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1987 OF 2023
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6169 of 2023)
(@ Diary No.37735 of 2022)
National Capital Territory of
Delhi & Ors. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Subhash Chander Khatri & 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 dated 15.01.2018
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.04.10
16:38:20 IST
Reason:
passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023 Page 1 of 8
Writ Petition (C) No.12143 of 2015 by which the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition and has
declared that the acquisition with respect to the
subject land 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”), however the High Court has
observed and held that the original writ petitioner
would be entitled to compensation under the Act,
2013, the Land and Building Department of the NCT
of Delhi and others have preferred the present
appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court, it appears that before the High
Court it was the specific case on behalf of the
Department that the possession of the subject land
has been taken. However, thereafter relying upon
the decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
reported in
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3
SCC 183 and on the ground that the compensation
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023 Page 2 of 8
has not been paid, the High Court has allowed the
writ petition and has declared that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to the subject land are
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013. However, as the land in question was
already put to use by the beneficiary Department,
the High Court has directed that the original writ
petitioner shall be entitled to the compensation
under the New Act.
2.1 Thus, even the High Court has accepted that
the possession of the land in question was already
taken over and even the land was put to use by the
Department. Even the original writ petitioner also
admitted the same and therefore prayed that he be
paid the compensation under the Act, 2013. Once
the possession of the subject land was taken over
and in fact was put to use prior to 2013 Act came
into force, as per the law laid down by this Court in
the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129, there shall
not be any deemed lapse of acquisition. In
paragraph 366 it is observed and held as under:
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023 Page 3 of 8
“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 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.
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.
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023 Page 4 of 8
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 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 non
payment or nondeposit 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
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023 Page 5 of 8
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).
The provisions of Section 24(2)
366.8.
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.
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. 11
2014. It does not revive stale and time
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023 Page 6 of 8
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 above and once there shall be no
deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013, the original writ petitioner shall not
be entitled to the compensation as per the Act,
2013. Under the circumstances the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is
hereby quashed and set aside. The original writ
petition filed by the respondent no.1 herein filed
before the High Court stands dismissed accordingly.
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023 Page 7 of 8
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]
………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 10, 2023.
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023 Page 8 of 8