Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9229 OF 2022
(@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23601 of 2022)
(@ Diary No.3575 of 2022)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi ..Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Maqbool & Ors. ..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 01.12.2015 passed by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015
by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition
preferred by the respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2022.12.15
18:15:15 IST
Reason:
has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in
1
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 ‘the Act 2013’), the Government of
NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1894) with
respect to the land in question was issued as far as back on
10.11.1960 followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the
Act, 1894 dated 06.01.1969. The award was declared on
31.01.1983. According to the Department and the Land
Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit on
behalf of the original respondent nos. 1 & 2 before the High
Court the possession of the disputed land in question along
with the other lands were taken over and handed over to DDA
on 04.03.1983. That in the year 2015 the respondent no.1
filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the
acquisition proceedings including the Notification under
Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and also for a declaration that the
2
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have been lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2.1 Though it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant
and the Land Acquisition Collector and so stated in the
counter affidavit before the High Court that the possession of
the land was taken on 04.03.1983 and the same was handed
over to DDA, without going into the controversy of the
physical possession, by the impugned judgment and order
and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the
ground that the compensation has not been tendered to the
land owner, the High Court has allowed the 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
Act, 2013. Hence, the present appeal.
3. As observed hereinabove, it was the specific case on
behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector
before the High Court that the possession of the land in
question was taken over on 04.03.1983 and the same was
3
handed over to the DDA. It is required to be noted that the
original acquisition is of the year 1960 and the writ petition
was preferred challenging the acquisition in the Notification
under Sections 4 & 6 after a period of almost 55 years. By the
impugned judgment and order the High Court has allowed the
writ petition relying upon the decision of this Court in the
case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) observing that
the compensation has not been tendered.
3.1 However, as per the recent decision of the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development
reported in
Authority versus Manoharlal and others (2020)
8 SCC 129 for the purpose of lapse under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013 twin conditions of not taking over possession and
not tendering/paying the compensation are required to be
satisfied. As per the decision in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) if one of the conditions is not
satisfied, there shall not be lapse of the acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the case
of Indore Development Authority (supra) the Constitution
Bench of this Court has specifically overruled the decision of
4
this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and
Anr. (supra) which has been relied upon by the High Court
while passing the impugned judgment and order. In
paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court
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 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.
In case the award has been passed
366.2.
within the window period of five years excluding the
5
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
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.
6
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.
The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013
366.6.
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 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
7
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.”
4. In view of the above and according to the possession
certificate and the specific case on behalf of the appellant and
the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession of the land
in question was taken over on 04.03.1983 and handed over to
DDA, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court allowing the Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015
and declaring the acquisition proceedings 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.
8
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15, 2022.
9