DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SURENDER SINGH & ORS. on 11 April 2023

1. This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals as commonquestions of law and fact are involved. The facts of the cases have beenEnoticed separately.

FACTS:

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1548 OF 2023

(DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITYVS. SURENDERFSINGH & ORS)

2. As pleaded, notification under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was issued on 21.03.2003 seeking toacquire land for Rohini Residential Scheme at Delhi. On 19.3.2004,Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued. The Land AcquisitionGCollector announced the award under Section 11 of the Act assessingcompensation for the acquired land on 12.7.2005. The compensationamount of 80,40,76,004/- for the acquisition of the land was depositedby the State with the Land Acquisition Collector.

3. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking SectionH24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “ 2013Act”) claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed since neitherpossession has been taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid.The definite stand of the State before the High Court was that thepossession of the land was taken on 31.08.2005 and handed over to theDelhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. Thetitle of the writ petitioners was in dispute. Hence, the compensationcould not be paid to them. It was deposited with the Land AcquisitionCollector. The High Court after relying upon the judgment of this Courtin Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another’s(2017) 6 SCC 751 held that petitioner therein had locus to file the writpetition though not being the recorded owner. It further relied upon thejudgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & another v.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and heldthat the acquisition has lapsed as the compensation had not been paid tothe land owners. Though, the issue of title of the land was left open.

CIVILAPPEAL NO. 1572 OF 2023

(DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITYVS. RAMSINGH & ORS.)

4. From the facts as are available on record, it is evident thatnotification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.09.1989 proposingto acquire the land situated in the revenue estate of village Ghonda GujranKhadar, Shahdra, Delhi, for the purpose of planned development of Delhi.Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 20.06.1990 andaward bearing no. 8/92-93 was announced by the Land AcquisitionCollector on 19.06.1992.

5. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsedas neither possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor hasbeen paid. The appellant’s stand before the High Court was that thepossession of the land was taken on 21.03.2007 and handed over to theDelhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. Thecompensation could not be paid to the land owners as they never claimedthe same.

6. The High Court relying upon the judgment of this Court in PuneMunicipal Corporation’s case (supra) held that the acquisition has lapsedas the compensation was not paid to the land owners.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACIVIL APPEAL NO. 1549 OF 2023

(GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR. VS. GYAN CHAND &ORS.)

7. From the facts as are available on record, it is evident thatBnotification under Section 4 of Act seeking to acquire the land situated inrevenue estate of villages Tughlakabad, Delhi, was issued on 25.01.1965.The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Acton 13.02.1969. The award bearing No. 50-A/1969-70 for the same wasannounced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 04.11.1981.

C8. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsedsince neither the possession has been taken nor the compensation thereforhas been paid. The appellant’s stand before the High Court was that thepossession of the land was taken on 23.11.1981 and handed over to theDelhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. TheDcompensation could not be paid to the land owners as they never claimedthe same. It was further submitted that the entire record pertaining tothe compensation was not traceable being old.

9. The High Court relying upon the judgment of this Court in PuneMunicipal Corporation’s case (supra) held that the acquisition has lapsedEas the compensation was not paid to the land owners.

CIVILAPPEAL NO. 1547 OF 2023

(DELHI DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITYVS. VEENAJAIN & ORS.)F

10. From the facts of the case as are available on record, it isevident that vide notification dated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 ofthe Act large chunk of the land including the land of petitioner comprisedin Khasra No.490, measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa situated in revenue estateof village Madan Pur Khadar, New Delhi was sought to be acquired forGplanned development of Delhi. It was followed by the notification issuedunder Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act. The Award bearingNo.20/92-93 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector /Collection (DS) on 19.06.1992.

11. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking SectionH24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed as neither the possession has been taken nor the compensation thereforhas been paid. The appellant’s stand before the High Court was that thepossession of the land was taken on 03.12.2012 and handed over to theDelhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. Thecompensation was sent to the Reference Court under Section 30-31 ofthe Act on account of dispute of apportionment amongst different owners.

12. The High Court relying upon the judgment of this Court inManav Dharma Trust and another’s case (supra)held that thepetitioner has locus to file the writ petition though not being the recordedowner. The High Court further relied upon the judgment of this Court inPune Municipal Corporation’s case (supra) and held that the acquisitionhas lapsed as the compensation was not paid to the land owners. Thequestion of title of subject land was left open to be decided by theappropriate forum.

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE COUNSELS:

13. The arguments raised by learned counsels appearing for theappellants are that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of thisCourt in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others(2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby earlier judgment of this Court in PuneMunicipal Corporation & Anr.’s case (supra) was overruled, the orderspassed by the High Court, in aforesaid Civil Appeals are liable to be setaside. It was opined by the Constitution Bench that compliance of eitherof the two conditions i.e. taking over of possession of the land or paymentof compensation, is good enough to sustain the acquisition. From theundisputed facts available on record it is evident that in all cases, thepossession of land in dispute was taken after the acquisition was completeand awards were announced.

14. Additional arguments raised in Civil Appeal Nos. 1547 & 1548of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 1547/2023 are that the judgment in ManavDharma Trust and another’s case (supra) was overruled by this Courtin subsequent judgment in Shiv Kumar vs. Union of India, (2019) 10SCC 229 and the aforesaid Civil Appeals are not maintainable.

15. On the other hand, the arguments raised by learned counselfor the respondents are that the writ petitions having been decided onthe basis of law as existing on the date of decision by the High Courtcannot be set aside on the basis of the subsequent judgment of this AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACourt. The High Court has held that compensation having not been paid,as per the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by this Court inPune Municipal Corporation’s case (supra), the acquisition proceedingslapsed. It is a matter of fact which has been noticed in the order passedby the High Court that the possession of the land had already been takenby the authority concerned.B16. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perusedthe records.

OBSERVATIONS:

17. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore DevelopmentCAuthority’s case (supra) had opined that satisfaction of either of theconditions namely either taking possession of the acquired land or paymentof compensation to the landowners would be sufficient to save theacquisition from being lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.Various questions posed before the Constitution Bench of this CourtDwere also answered. Relevant para-Nos. 362 and 366 are extractedbelow:

“362. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune MunicipalCorporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and all otherdecisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) hasEbeen followed, are also overruled. …

...

….

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

F

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case theaward is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencementof the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings.Compensation has to be determined under the provisions ofthe 2013 Act.

G

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 asif it has not been repealed.

H

366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) betweenpossession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as“and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedingsunder Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due toinaction of authorities for five years or more prior tocommencement of the said Act, the possession of land has notbeen taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words,in case possession has been taken, compensation has notbeen paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensationhas been paid, possession has not been taken then there isno lapse.

(Emphasis supplied)

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensationin court. The consequence of non- deposit is provided in theproviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been depositedwith respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries(landowners) as on the date of notification for landacquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitledto compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest underSection 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 respectto 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 landacquisition 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 notopen to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section24(2) due to non-payment or non- deposit of compensationin court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering theamount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refusedto accept compensation or who sought reference for highercompensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedingshad lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

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 Actand as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing ofinquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passedBon taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, theland vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been takenthere is no lapse under Section 24(2).

366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for aCdeemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in caseauthorities have failed due to their inaction to takepossession and pay compensation for five years or morebefore the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding forland acquisition pending with the authority concerned asDon 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orderspassed by court has to be excluded in the computation offive years.

366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise tonew cause of action to question the legality of concludedEproceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to aproceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barredclaims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allowlandowners to question the legality of mode of takingpossession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit ofFcompensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidateacquisition.”

18. It is the undisputed fact on the record, as has been noticed inthe impugned orders passed by the High Court in the aforesaid CivilAppeals, the possession of the land was taken over by the LandGAcquisition Collector and handed over to Delhi Development Authority.Hence, one of the conditions being satisfied, we need not examine anyother argument.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact and the law laid down bythe Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority’sH

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SURENDER SINGH &ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

case (supra), in our opinion the orders passed by the High Court cannotbe legally sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The appealsare allowed. The writ petitions filed by the respondents before the HighCourt are ordered to be dismissed.

Nidhi Jain

Appeals allowed.

(Assisted by : Shraddha Singh, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H