DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DEWAN CHAND PRUTHI & ORS on 20 January 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WritPetition (C) No. 609 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the Dsaid writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein and hasdeclared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regardto the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to asE“Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the presentappeal.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court.F

2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt, it is evident that before the High Court, it was the specific caseon behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and so stated in thecounter affidavit in paragraph 8 that since the Hon’ble High Court hadgranted stay against dispossession, therefore, the possession of the landGin question was not taken, however, the compensation with respect tothe land in question was sent in RD. Despite the above, relying upon theearlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,(2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petition andHhas declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. However,in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, this Courthas subsequently overruled the earlier decision of this Court in the caseof Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has beenrelied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment andorder.

2.2 In the case of Indore Development Authority (supra),the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held that if thepossession could not be taken by the acquiring body / beneficiary due tothe stay of the Court, the period of stay is to be excluded. Even otherwise,we are of the opinion that once having obtained the stay against thedispossession and due to which the acquiring body / beneficiary couldnot have taken the possession, thereafter, it is not open for the landownerto contend that as the possession is not taken, he is entitled to the benefitof Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.3 In the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) inparagraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observedand held as under:- “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in PuneMunicipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled andall other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [PuneMunicipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decisionin Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji NagarResidential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannotbe said to be laying down good law, is overruled and otherdecisions following the same are also overruled. In IndoreDevelopment Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], theaspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether“or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed forconsideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, inthe light of the discussion in the present judgment.

366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answerthe questions as under:

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

F

G

H

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in casethe award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date ofcommencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse ofproceedings. Compensation has to be determined under theprovisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2. In case the award has been passed within thewindow period of five years excluding the period covered byan interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continueas provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the1894 Act 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 underSection 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inactionof authorities for five years or more prior to commencementof the 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 isno lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possessionhas not 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 theproviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited withrespect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries(landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisitionunder Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled tocompensation 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 respect tothe majority of holdings for five years or more, compensationunder the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as onthe date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 ofthe 1894 Act.

366.5. In case a person has been tendered thecompensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act,it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed underSection 24(2) due to non-payment or non- deposit ofcompensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete bytendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landownerswho had refused to accept compensation or who soughtreference for higher compensation, cannot claim that theacquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the2013 Act.

366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act isto be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section24(1)(b).

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing ofinquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed ontaking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the landvests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is nolapse under 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 subsistenceof interim 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 riseto new cause of action to question the legality of concludedproceedings 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-barred claimsand does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allowlandowners to question the legality of mode of taking possessionto reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation inthe treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2023] 1 S.C.R.

A3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the ConstitutionBench decision in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra)to the facts of the case on hand, the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashedand set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

B

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

C

Nidhi Jain

(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H