Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.279 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO.1016 of 2023)
(@ DIARY NO.29573 OF 2022)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. … Appellants
Versus
Bhagrati & 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 29.11.2017 passed by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 12139 of
2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
Signature Not Verified
petition preferred by the private respondent no.1 herein –
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.01.13
16:29:11 IST
Reason:
original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition
1
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 and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
appellant/LAC before the High Court, it appears that it was
the specific case on behalf of the appellant and others –
original respondents that the award with respect to the land
in question was declared on 19.06.1992 and the actual vacant
physical possession of the subject land was taken on
21.03.2007, out of which the original writ petitioner is
th
claiming 1/12 share. It was also the case on behalf of the
appellant that the possession was handed over to the DDA
after preparing possession proceedings on the spot. It was
also the case on behalf of the appellant/LAC that the original
writ petitioner is not the recorded owner and the recorded
owner never came forward to receive any compensation and
2
hence the same is lying unpaid. Despite the above and even
after observing that the land in question was taken over
thereafter relying upon the decision of this Court in the case
of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
the High
Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183,
Court has erred in keeping the question of title of the subject
land open to be decided in the appropriate court of
jurisdiction, has declared that the acquisition with respect to
the land in question is deemed to have lapsed when the
compensation had not been paid.
2.1 From the aforesaid, it appears that the title with respect
to the land in question in favour of the original writ petitioner
was yet to be established. The original petitioner was not the
recorded owner. The recorded owner never came forward to
receive the compensation and therefore the same was lying
unpaid. Therefore, unless and until the right and title of the
original writ petitioner was established the High Court has
materially erred in entertaining the writ petition.
2.2 Even otherwise on merits also the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. While
3
passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has
heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of
, which has
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra)
been subsequently 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, 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.
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
answer the questions as under:
4
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.
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
5
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
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).
The provisions of Section 24(2) providing
366.8.
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
6
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. 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
compensation in the treasury instead of court to
invalidate acquisition.”
3. In view of the above and applying the law laid down by
this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
(supra)
Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. In view of the above and for the reason stated above
present appeal is allowed. 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
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed and
set aside.
7
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 13, 2023.
8