DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus AMIT JAIN & ORS on 24 February 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentCand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No. 5061 of 2016, by which, the High Court has allowed the saidwrit petition and has declared that the acquisition of suit land measuring3 bighas and 18 biswas in Khasra Nos. 10/20/2/1 (2-00) and 21/1 (1-18)and 17/1 (1-9) and land measuring 1 bigha and 9 biswas in Khasra No.D17/1/1 (2-01) vide award No. 04/2008-09 dated 31.10.2008 is deemed tohave lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensationand Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ResettlementAct, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi DevelopmentAuthority has preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighECourt and from the counter affidavit filed by the Govt. of Delhi throughLAC before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case onbehalf of the LAC that the physical possession of the property/landbearing Khasra Nos. 17/1/1 min (1-18), 10/20/2/1 (2-0), 21/1 (1-18) wasduly taken over by the Government on 29.01.2010. However, remainingF3 biswa land comprised in Khasra No. 17/1/1 was not taken over due tobuilt- up. Despite the above and thereafter following the earlier decisionof this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183,on the ground that the compensation with respect to the lands in questionis not paid/tendered to the land owners, the High Court has allowed theGwrit petition and has declared that the entire acquisition with respect tothe land measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas in Khasra Nos. 10/20/2/1 (2-00) and 21/1 (1-18) and 17/1 (1-9) and land measuring 1 bigha and 9biswas in Khasra No. 17/1/1 (2-01) is deemed to have lapsed underSection 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

H

H

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writpetitioners disputed the actual taking over of possession and submittedthat the possession was taken over by drawing proceedings. However,as observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 taking overthe physical possession by drawing the punchnama/possessionproceedings can be said to be sufficient compliance. Therefore, exceptthe remaining 3 biswa land comprised in Khasra No. 17/1/1 which wasnot taken over due to built-up, the possession of the other lands in questionwere taken by the Government on 29.01.2010. Under the circumstances,the acquisition with respect to the entire lands in question could not havebeen declared as deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

4. In the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) inparagraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed andheld 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 to the facts of thecase on hand and considering the fact that except the 3 biswa landcomprised in Khasra No. 17/1/1 which was not taken due to built- up,the possession of the other lands in question was taken over by theGovernment on 29.01.2010, there shall be no deemed lapse with respectto the entire acquisition of the lands in question under Section 24(2) ofthe Act, 2013. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deservesto be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Divya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Roopanshi Virang, LCRAs)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H