LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THROUGH SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. versus MAHIPAL SINGH & ORS on 2 December 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WritPetition(C) No. 11238 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed thesaid writ petition and has declared that theland acquisition proceedingsinitiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred toas “Act, 1894”) with regard to the landin question isdeemed to havelapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCTof Delhi and Anr.havepreferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passedby the HighCourt and even from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the LandAcquisition Collector filed before the High Court, which is reproducedby the High Court in the impugned judgment and order in paragraph 6, itwas the specific case on behalf of the appellants that the possession ofthe land in question was taken over on 03.12.2012 after preparingpossession proceeding on the spot and was handed over to the beneficiarydepartment, i.e., Delhi Development Authority (DDA) immediately. Itwas also pointed out that the compensation was also sent to the ReferenceCourt on 28.10.2014 as there was an apportionment dispute.

2.1 In spite of above, solely on the ground that the compensationwas not tendered prior to coming into force of the Act, 2013 and relyingupon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,(2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petition andhas declared that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed underSection 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.2 The view taken by the High Court relying upon the decision ofthis Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.(supra) is unsustainable in view of the Constitution Bench decision ofthis Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:- “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune MunicipalCorpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions inwhich Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has beenfollowed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji NagarResidential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. Stateof T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying downgood law, is overruled and other decisions following the same arealso overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra[(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso toSection 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as“and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decisiontoo cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the presentjudgment.

366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer thequestions as under:

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.

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.

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.

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 proviso to 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 tothe 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.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A366.9. 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 modeBof taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit ofcompensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidateacquisition.”

3. In view of the above and when the relied upon judgment in thecase of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has beenCspecifically overruled by this Court in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority (supra) and considering the fact that the possession of theland in question was already taken over in the year 2012 and the samewas handed over to the beneficiary – DDA immediately and in light ofthe observations made by the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore DDevelopment Authority (supra) made in paragraphs 365 and 366(reproduced hereinabove), the impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and setaside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.EPending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

F

G

H