GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR versus MANJEET KAUR & ANR. on 13 March 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. 6158 of 2016, by which, the High Court has allowed the saidwrit petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respectto Khasra No. 668/1 min (0- 12) and 668/2 (01-08) total admeasuring 2bighas situated at the Revenue Estate of Village Satbari, New Delhi, aredeemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to FairCompensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), theGovernment of NCT of Delhi & Anr. have preferred the present appeal.

E

F

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respectiveparties at length and perused the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court. From the impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court, it appears that the High Court has allowed the writpetition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land inquestion is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013,relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,(2014) 3 SCC 183, and by observing that neither the possession of theland in question has been taken nor the compensation has been tendered/

G

H

Apaid as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation (supra).

3. However, it is required to be noted that before the High Court,it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant(s) that original writpetitioner being the subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge theBacquisition/deemed lapse of acquisition. Even from the averments madein original writ petition, the original writ petitioner claimed the ownershipon the basis of the agreement to sell, assignment deed, receipt andpossession letter, electricity bill and property tax bill (para 2), the word“sale deed” is inserted by ink. However, no sale deed is forthcoming,thus, the original writ petitioner claimed the ownership and in possessionCof the agreement to sell, assignment deed, be that as it may, original writpetitioner or the subsequent purchaser. Though, it was the specific caseon behalf of the appellant(s) that the original writ petitioner or thesubsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/deemedlapse acquisition but the High Court has not dealt with the same. WhetherDthe subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/deemedlapse acquisition is not res integra in view of the decision of this Courtin the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)10 SCC 229 and subsequent decision of this Court in the case of DelhiDevelopment Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. CivilAppeal No. 3073/2022.E

4. In the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. (supra) afterconsidering the other decisions on the locus of the subsequent purchaserto claim lapse of acquisition proceedings, i.e., Shiv Kumar (supra),Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9SCC 173 and M. Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, BangaloreFDevelopment Authority (2015) 17 SCC 1, it is specifically observedand held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus to claim lapse ofacquisition proceedings. The decision of this Court in the case of ShivKumar (supra) has been subsequently followed by this Court in catenaof decisions.G

5. In view of the above, the High Court has seriously erred indeclaring that the acquisition in respect of the land in question is deemedto have lapsed in writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner –subsequent purchaser.

6. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the presentHcase, the possession of the land in question could not be taken by the authority due to pending litigation/stay. The decision of this Court in thecase of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been overruled bythe Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraph366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held 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.

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 land A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

acquisition 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 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 or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of courtto invalidate acquisition.”

7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the cases of ShivKumar (supra), Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. (supra) and the decision ofthis Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainableand the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordinglyquashed and set aside. There shall be no deemed lapse of the acquisitionwith respect to the land in question. The original writ petition before theHigh Court stands dismissed.

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

Ankit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H