Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 482 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO. 1866 OF 2023)
(@ DIARY NO. 29470 OF 2021)
Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. …Appellant(s)
Versus
Ashok Kumar & 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. 3581 of 2015, by which, the High Court has
allowed the said writ petition 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 “Act, 2013”),
the Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. have preferred the present
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Sachdeva
Date: 2023.03.13
16:11:37 IST
Reason:
appeal.
1
2. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and having gone through the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court it can be seen that
by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has
declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question
is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that neither the
possession of the land in question was taken nor the
compensation has been tendered/paid and relying upon the
earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 , and decision of the High Court in the
case of Gyanender Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors
decided on 23.09.2014 in W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014 .
3. However, it is required to be noted that before the High Court it
was the specific case on behalf of the appellant(s) and so
recorded by the High Court in paragraph 4 of the impugned
judgment and order that the physical possession could not be
taken because of the operation of stay order passed in writ
petitions in which the stay order was continuing. The High Court
has also observed that “it is an admitted position that the stay
order continued to operate till 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act
came into effect.” In the case of Indore Development Authority
2
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, the Constitution
Bench of this Court has observed in paragraph 366 as under:-
“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.
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
3
(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.
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).
4
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.”
4. Thus, as per the decision of Constitution Bench of this Court in
the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) the period
during which the stay was operating is to be excluded.
5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand
and more particularly, even when the Act, 2013 came into force
the stay order continued to operate and due to which the
5
possession of the land in question could not be taken, there shall
be no deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
6. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court
in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) by the High
Court and the decision of the High Court in the case of
Gyanender Singh (supra) are concerned, the decision of this
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has
been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the
case of Indore Development Authority (supra). The decision of
the High Court in the case of Gyanender Singh (supra) is just
contrary to the decision of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra). Therefore, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable
and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. 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 allowing the writ petition and declaring
that the acquisition in respect of the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby
quashed and set aside. The original writ petition before the High
Court stands dismissed. There shall be no deemed lapse of the
6
acquisition with respect to the land in question under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
MARCH 13, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
7