Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1353 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO. 3993 OF 2023)
(@ DIARY NO. 27637 OF 2022)
National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr. …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 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
Petition (C) No. 12118 of 2015, by which, the High Court has
allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with
regard to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed and that the
original writ petitioners are entitled to the compensation as per the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to
as “Act, 2013”), Secretary, Land and Building Department, NCT of
Signature Not Verified
Delhi and Land Acquisition Collector have preferred the present
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2023.02.24
16:49:48 IST
Reason:
appeal.
1
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
and even as per the counter affidavit(s) filed by LAC (Land
Acquisition Collector) and Irrigation and Flood Control Department
– beneficiary of the subject land before the High Court, the
possession of the lands in question had been taken over and the
land has been put to use for construction of Bankner Link Drain.
From the impugned judgment and order, it appears that the original
writ petitioners as such never disputed the case on behalf of the
original respondents that the physical possession of the subject
land has been taken over and the land has been put to use. That
the original writ petitioners restricted the prayer for grant of
compensation as per the Act, 2013. However, thereafter, relying
upon the earlier 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 impugned
judgment and order has been passed by the High Court declaring
that the acquisition proceedings with regard to the subject land are
deemed to have lapsed and therefore, the original writ petitioners
shall be entitled to the compensation as per the Act, 2013 on the
ground that the compensation has not been paid. However, the
decision of this court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
and Anr. (supra) has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of
2
this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and in
paragraphs 365 and 366, it is 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.
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.
3
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
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.
4
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
proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the
treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”
3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand,
more particularly, the fact that physical possession of the subject
land has been taken over and in fact the subject land has been put
5
to use by the beneficiary department – Irrigation and Flood Control
Board for construction of Bankner Link Drain which has been duly
built, there shall not be any lapse of the acquisition with regard to
the subject land as observed and held by the High Court. The
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is just
contrary to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in
the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), which is
unsustainable.
4. 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 writ petition
before the High Court stands dismissed.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
FEBRUARY 24, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
6