NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR. versus SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS. on 24 February 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No. 12118 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the saidwrit petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiatedunder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the subject land areDdeemed to have lapsed and that the original writ petitioners are entitledto the compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), Secretary, Land andBuilding Department, NCT of Delhi and Land Acquisition Collector havepreferred the present appeal.E

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt and even as per the counter affidavit(s) filed by LAC (LandAcquisition Collector) and Irrigation and Flood Control Department –beneficiary of the subject land before the High Court, the possession ofthe lands in question had been taken over and the land has been put toFuse for construction of Bankner Link Drain. From the impugned judgmentand order, it appears that the original writ petitioners as such never disputedthe case on behalf of the original respondents that the physical possessionof the subject land has been taken over and the land has been put to use.That the original writ petitioners restricted the prayer for grant ofcompensation as per the Act, 2013. However, thereafter, relying uponGthe earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the impugned judgment and order hasbeen passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition proceedingswith regard to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed and therefore,Hthe original writ petitioners shall be entitled to the compensation as per

NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR. v.SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the Act, 2013 on the ground that the compensation has not been paid.However, the decision of this court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. (supra) has been overruled by the ConstitutionBench of this Court in the case of Indore Development AuthorityVs. Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and inparagraphs 365 and 366, it is observed and held as under: - “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune MunicipalCorpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,(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 thewindow period of five years excluding the period covered by aninterim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue asprovided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894Act as if it has not been repealed.

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 proceedings under Section24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction ofauthorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

said Act, the possession of land has not been taken norcompensation has been paid. In other words, in case possessionhas been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is nolapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession hasnot been taken then there is no lapse.

A

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensationin court. 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 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.

B

C

D

366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensationEas 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 claimFthat the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act.

E

E

366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is tobe treated 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 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).

G

H

NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR. v.SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for adeemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authoritieshave failed due to their inaction to take possession and paycompensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act cameinto force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with theauthority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence ofinterim orders passed by court has to be excluded in thecomputation of five years.

366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise tonew cause of action to question the legality of concludedproceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceedingpending 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 reopenconcluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question thelegality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings ormode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of courtto invalidate acquisition.”

3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand,more particularly, the fact that physical possession of the subject landhas been taken over and in fact the subject land has been put to use bythe beneficiary department – Irrigation and Flood Control Board forconstruction of Bankner Link Drain which has been duly built, thereshall not be any lapse of the acquisition with regard to the subject land asobserved and held by the High Court. The impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court is just contrary to the decision of the ConstitutionBench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority(supra), which is unsustainable.

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 writ petition beforethe High Court stands dismissed.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Appeal allowed.

(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Roopanshi Virang, LCRAs)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H