GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus SUBHASH GUPTA & ORS. on 9 February 2023

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

v.

SUBHASH GUPTA & ORS.(Civil Appeal No. 737 of 2023)

FEBRUARY 09, 2023

[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]

Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ResettlementAct, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Possession ofthe land in question could not be taken because of the operation ofthe stay order in a writ petition and the same came to be continuedby Supreme Court till 11.02.2015 – Therefore, there was a stayoperating against the taking over of the possession even on theday on which the Act, 2013 came into force – High Court however,relying upon its’ earlier decision in the case of Jagjit Singh and thedecision of Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation,allowed writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 and declaredthat acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with regardto the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2) ofAct, 2013 as physical possession of the subject land was not takenand compensation was not paid – Held: Decisions in the cases ofPune Municipal Corporation, and Jagjeet Singh are contrary to theConstitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority – As per law laid in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority, the period of stay of taking over thepossession has to be excluded for the purpose of s.24(2) of Act,2013 – Even otherwise, once having obtained the stay of possession,thereafter, it will not be open for the landowners to contend that asthe possession (which is not taken due to stay) has not been takentherefore, there would be lapse under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 –Twin conditions namely, not taking the possession and not payingthe compensation have to be satisfied and if one of the conditionsis not satisfied there shall not be any lapse of the acquisition –Impugned judgment passed by High Court, accordingly,unsustainable.

Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.

407

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

APune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. HarakchandMisrimal Solanki & Ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 – heldoverruled.

Case Law Reference

(2014) 3 SCC 183held overruledPara 2B[2020] 3 SCR 1followedPara 3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.737 of2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2015 of the High CourtCof Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.2458 of 2015.

Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Shivam Singh,Rohan Sharma, Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Gopal Singh, Ms. Iti Sharma, RahulBhatia, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, ManishVashist, Roshan Kumar, Nitin Mishra, Sahil Tagotra, Abhishek Pandey,DMs. Abhivyakti Banerjee, Ms. Sakshi Garg, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Advs.for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.E1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WritPetition (C) No. 2458 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed thesaid writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – originalwrit petitioner and has declared that the land acquisition proceedingsinitiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred toFas “Act, 1894”) with regard to the land in question is deemed to havelapsed under 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 Govt. of NCT ofDelhi has preferred the present appeal.G

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt and even so stated in the counter affidavit filed before the HighCourt, it appears that the possession of the land in question could not betaken because of the operation of the stay order in Writ Petition (C) No.14129 of 2005 and the same came to be continued by this Court tillH11.02.2015. Therefore, there was a stay operating against the taking

over of the possession even on the day on which the Act, 2013 cameinto force. However, despite the above and relying upon its earlier decisionin the case of Jagjit Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.,Writ Petition (C) No. 2806 of 2004 and relying upon the decision ofthis Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, theHigh Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that theland acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respect tothe land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of theAct, 2013 as the physical possession of the subject land was not takenand the compensation has not been paid.

3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by theHigh Court while passing the impugned judgment and order and thedecision of the High Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh and Ors.(supra), which has also been relied upon by the High Court are justcontrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case ofIndore 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 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:

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A

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.

B

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.

C

D

C

D

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensationEin 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 theFprovisions 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 underGthe 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 the compensationas provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open tohim to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due H

to non-payment or non- deposit of compensation in court. Theobligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensationor who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claimthat the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 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 ormode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of courtto invalidate acquisition.”

4. As per the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra), the period of stay of taking over thepossession has to be excluded for the purpose of Section 24(2) of Act,2013. Even otherwise, once having obtained the stay of possession, A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Athereafter, it will not be open for the landowners to contend that as thepossession (which is not taken due to stay) has not been taken therefore,there would be lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

5. In view of the above and applying the law laid down by thisCourt in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), theBimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring thatthe land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 with respectto land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of theAct, 2013 is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and setaside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

CPresent appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

D