GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ORS. versus KRISHAN KUMAR & ORS. on 17 February 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated14.03.2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1178 of 2015 by which the HighCourt has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that theacquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsedby virtue of 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 Ors. have preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt and even from the counter affidavit filed by the Land AcquisitionCollector (LAC) before the High Court, it appears that it was the specificcase on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector – GNCTD that thelands in question of Village Molarband were acquired vide Notificationunder Section 4 dated 04.04.1964, award was declared by the LAC on19.10.1981 and the possession of the land falling in subject Khasra Nos.154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) was taken on 10.04.1997 after preparingthe possession proceeding on the spot and the same was handed over tothe beneficiary department, i.e., DDA immediately. In paragraph 4 ofthe counter affidavit, it was stated as under:- “4. That it is submitted that the lands of village Molarband werenotified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct dated 4.4.1964 which was followed by Notification undersection 6 of the said Act vide Notification dated 7.12.1966. Thatthe then Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award bearing No.1934-D dated 19.10.81 and the possession of the land falling in A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Asubject khasra number 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) was takenon 10.04.1997 after preparing Possession Proceeding on the spot,the same was handed over to the beneficiary department, i.e.,DDA immediately. The compensation of the land under referencehowever could not be paid to the recorded owners and is lyingdeposited in RD on 30.1.82. It is submitted that the petitioners areBalso admitting that the government has taken the actual vacantphysical possession of the subject land as there is no averment inthe writ petition regarding having possession of the petitionersand rather the petitioner has averred that the Government is liableto return the said land to the petitioner on page 19. The petitionersChave raised grievance of non-payment of compensation only.”

3. Despite the above and relying upon the decision of this Court inthe case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the groundthat the compensation has not been paid, the High Court has allowed theDwrit petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to thelands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of theAct, 2013. No finding is given by the High Court with respect to thecase on behalf of the LAC that the possession of the disputed lands inquestion was taken over on 10.04.1997 and was handed over to thebeneficiary department, i.e., DDA immediately. Even from the avermentEin para (I) in the writ petition, it was the case on behalf of the originalwrit petitioners that the possession of the land comprising of KhasraNos. 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) is liable to be returned to thepetitioners as the entire land acquisition proceedings are deemed to havelapsed. Meaning thereby, the original writ petitioners admitted that theyFwere not in possession, otherwise they would not have asked for returnof the possession. Be that it may, the LAC had produced on record thepossession proceedings, which had sufficient compliance as per the lawlaid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development AuthorityVs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.

G4. As observed hereinabove, in the present case, while allowingthe writ petition, the High Court has mainly relied upon the decision ofthis Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.(supra), which decision has been overruled by the Constitution Benchdecision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority(supra). In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this CourtHhas 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. 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 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.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

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 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 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 came into 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.”

5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring thatthe acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to havelapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and thesame deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashedand set aside. There shall not be any deemed lapsed as observed andheld by the High Court.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Divya Pandey(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H