DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJESH DUA & 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 WritEPetition(C) No. 6478 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed thesaid writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein andhas declared 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,FRehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as“Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferredthe present appeal.

2. In the present case, the land in question was acquired in theyear 1964 and the award was declared in the year 1967. According toGthe Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and so stated in the counter affidavitfiled before the High Court, the possession of the land in question wastaken over in the year 1967 by drawing the panchnama. Thecompensation with respect to the land in question was duly depositedwith the Reference Court in the year 1967 itself. That thereafter theHrespondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein – original writ petitioners filed the writ

petition before the High Court in the year 2017 and prayed to declarethat the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed tohave lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensationwas not actually tendered/paid to the landowners. Relying upon its earlierdecision in the case of Smt. Harbans Kaur Vs. Govt. of NCT ofDelhi and Ors. [W.P.(C) 5358 of 2014, decided on 02.02.2015], in whichafter relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of PuneMunicipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand MisirimalSolanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, it was held that the depositingof the amount of compensation with the Reference Court cannot beregarded as compensation having been paid to the landowners and theHigh Court by the impugned judgment and order has allowed the writpetition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land inquestion is deemed to have lapsed as actual physical possession of thesubject land has not been taken over by the land acquiring agency. Feelingaggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, theDelhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length.

4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that according to theLAC, the amount of compensation was deposited with the ReferenceCourt in the year 1967. Even the possession of the land in question wastaken over by drawing the panchnama, which is a permissible mode asobserved and held by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in thecase of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.,(2020) 8 SCC 129.

4.1Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that while decidingthe case of Smt.Harbans Kaur (supra), the High Court has reliedupon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr (supra).However, the decision of this Court inthe case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has beenspecifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the caseof Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020)8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of thisCourt has observed and held as under:- “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in PuneMunicipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

all 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:

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 with respect 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 subsistence ABC

D

E

F

G

H

Aof 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 aBproceeding 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.”

C

C

5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra), and considering the fact that thecompensation with respect to the land in question was deposited in theReference Court in the year 1967 and that between 1967 and 2017,nothing is on record to show that the writ petitioners were praying and/Dor a grievance was made by the original landowners with respect tonon-payment of compensation and that the possession of the land inquestion was stated to be taken in the year 1967 by drawing thepanchnama, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Courtis unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside andis accordingly quashed and set aside.

E

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Ankit GyanF(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

G

H