Supreme Court of India
NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. versus SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS. on 10 April 2023
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
ANATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.
v.
SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1987 of 2023)
BAPRIL 10, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition byCthe private respondent-writ petitioner seeking declaration thatacquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to havelapsed in view of s.24(2) – Department’s case that the possession ofthe subject land was taken over and used by the Department priorto 2013 and the compensation was not paid – High Court held theDacquisition is deemed to have lapsed, however the original writpetitioner would be entitled to compensation under the Act – Onappeal, held : Possession of the subject land was taken over andwas put to use prior to 2013 Act came into force, there would be nodeemed lapse of acquisition and the original writ petitioner notentitled to compensation under the Act – Impugned Judgment passedEby the High Court not sustainable and set aside – Land AcquisitionAct, 1897.
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.(2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed.
FPune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014](1) SCR 783 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783referred toPara 2G(2020) 8 SCC 129followedPara 2.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1987of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2018 of the High CourtHof Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 12143 of 2015.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Saransh Kumar, DigvijayDam, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advs. for theRespondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in Writ Petition(C) No.12143 of 2015 by which the High Court hasallowed the said writ petitionand has declared that the acquisition withrespect 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 theoriginal writ petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the Act,2013, the Land and Building Department of the NCT of Delhi and othershave preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt, it appears that before the High Court it was the specific case onbehalf of the Department that the possession of the subject land hasbeen taken. However, thereafter relying upon the decision of this Courtin the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki and Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and onthe ground that the compensation has not been paid, the High Court hasallowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedingswith respect to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, as the land in question was already putto use by the beneficiary Department, the High Court has directed thatthe original writ petitioner shall be entitled to the compensation under theNew Act.
2.1 Thus, even the High Court has accepted that the possessionof the land in question was already taken over and even the land was putto use by the Department. Even the original writ petitioner also admittedthe same and therefore prayed that he be paid the compensation underthe Act, 2013. Once the possession of the subject land was taken overand in fact was put to use prior to 2013 Act came into force, as per the A
B
C
DEF
G
H
Alaw laid down by this Court in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129, there shallnot be any deemed lapse of acquisition. In paragraph366 it is observedand held as under:- “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer thequestions as under:
B
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case theaward is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement ofthe 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation hasto be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
C
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the windowperiod of five years excluding the period covered by an interimorder of the court, then proceedings shall continue as providedunder Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if ithas not been repealed.
D
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possessionand compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemedlapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for fiveyears or more prior to commencement of the said Act, thepossession of land has not been taken nor compensation has beenpaid. 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 takenthen there is no lapse.
E
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation incourt. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the provisoto Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect tomajority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as onthe date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with theprovisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interestunder Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit ofcompensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of landacquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to F
G
H
the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation underthe 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date ofnotification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensationas provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open tohim to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) dueto non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. Theobligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensationor who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claimthat 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 betreated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act andas contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquestreport/memorandum. Once award has been passed on takingpossession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests inState there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapseunder Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemedlapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have faileddue to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation forfive years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in aproceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concernedas on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passedby 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 newcause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedingsof land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending onthe date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does notrevive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concludedproceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of modeof taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit ofcompensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidateacquisition.”
AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
A3. In view of the above and once there shall be no deemed lapseof acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the original writpetitioner shall not be entitled to the compensation as per the Act, 2013.Under the circumstances the impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court is unsustainable. as well as in the case of int eh case ofcacy remedy is available to any aggrieved person.rs. present appealsBare against the
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The original writ petitionfiled by the respondent no.1 herein filed before the High Court standsCdismissed accordingly.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
D
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)
E
F
G
H