LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR versus JAI PRAKASH TYAGI & 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. 2198 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the saidwrit petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respectto the subject lands in question comprised in Khasra Nos. 35/2/2 (6-04),36/2/2 (4-13) and 40/2/2 (5-01) total measuring 15 bighas 18 biswasituated in revenue estate of village Wazirabad are deemed to have lapsedunder Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparencyin Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Land Acquisition Collector,New Delhi has preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt and from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC (LandAcquisition Collector) before the High Court, it appears that it was thespecific case on behalf of the LAC that the possession of Khasra No.35/2/2 measuring 6 bighas 04 biswa was taken over on 22.09.1997; asregards Khasra No. 36/2/2 measuring 4 bighas 13 biswa possessionwas taken over in respect of 3 bighas of land on 22.09.1997, however,the possession of 1 bigha 13 biswa out of that Khasra could not be takenand so far as Khasra No. 40/2/2 is concerned, the possession was nottaken over. It was the case on behalf of the LAC that the possessionwith respect to some portion of the lands could not be taken over due tostay in writ petitions Nos. 2506/1982 and 3631/1982. Despite the aboveand without going into the controversy of physical possession, mainlyrelying upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of PuneMunicipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

ASolanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Courthas allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition withrespect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013.

3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalBCorporation (supra) which has been heavily relied upon by the HighCourt while passing the impugned judgment and order has beenspecifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the caseof Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.,reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and in paragraphs 365 and 366, thisCourt has observed and held as under: -C

“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 beenDfollowed, 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. ShailendraE[(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 theFquestions 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.

G

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 thesaid 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.

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.

366.5. In case a person has been tendered thecompensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, itis not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court.The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount underSection 31(1). The landowners who had refused to acceptcompensation or who sought reference for higher compensation,cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed underSection 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

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 inquest AB

CD

E

F

G

H

report/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).

A

B366.8. 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 ofCinterim 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 proceedingDpending 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 courtEto invalidate acquisition.”

D

4. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, theHigh Court has materially erred in declaring that the acquisitionproceedings with respect to the entire land i.e., 15 bigha 18 biswa areFdeemed to have lapsed is unsustainable.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above andapplying the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. There shallGbe no deemed lapse with respect to the acquisition proceedings of thelands in question under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Consequently,the writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner(s) before theHigh Court stands dismissed. However, while allowing the present appeal,it is observed that if the original land owners/recorded owners or theperson(s) interested are not paid the compensation, they may be paidHthe compensation with respect to the lands in question in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and their prayer(s)be considered in accordance with law and on their own merits.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Divya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Roopanshi Virang, LCRAs)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H