GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANR versus RAM PRAKASH SEHRAWAT AND ORS. on 15 December 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WritPetition(C) No. 4952 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed theEsaid writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein andhas declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question isdeemed 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”), theGovt. of NCT of Delhi (Land and Building Department) and the LandFAcquisition Collector have preferred the present appeal.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case,the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894) was issued on 23.01.1965 andthe award was declared, followed by Section 12(2) notice on 19.09.1986.GAs per the counter affidavit filed by the appellants before the High Court,the possession of the land in question was taken and handed over to theDDA on 22.09.1986. After a period of approximately 29 years of passingof the award and taking over of possession, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2approached the High Court by way of present writ petition and prayedHthat the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to

have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the impugnedjudgment and order, though the High Court has referred to the counteraffidavit filed on behalf of the appellants filed before the High Court, inwhich it was specifically stated that the possession of the land in questionwas taken over and handed over to the DDA on 22.09.1986, however,thereafter without further entering into the question of taking over thepossession, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court hasrelied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and has declared that the acquisitionwith respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed underSection 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensationhas not been paid to the recorded owners.

3. It is the case on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that theactual possession of the land in question was not taken over and thatthere is an illegal residential colony on the land in question for which theregularization proceedings are going on and a writ petition is pending forthe same before the High Court. However, it is required to be noted thatit was the specific case on behalf of the appellants and as so mentionedin the counter affidavit filed before the High Court that the possession ofthe land in question was taken over and handed over to the DDA on22.09.1986, and, therefore, the alleged possession of the acquired landand the status of the original writ petitioners are nothing but one havingillegal possession and unlawful encroachment on the Government land.

3.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that before the HighCourt and even before this Court, possession proceedings have beenplaced on record to show that the possession of the land in questionalongwith other lands were taken over and handed over to the Land andBuilding Department on 22.09.1986. Apart from the same, even,according to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, a Writ Petition No. 9366 of2005 for regularization of the illegal construction of the residential colonyon the land in question is still pending in the High Court. Meaning thereby,the original writ petitioners – respondent Nos. 1 and 2 admit that thepossession and construction on the land in question is illegal. From theaforesaid, it can be seen that there may be an illegal residential colony inwhich some other persons might be staying. Therefore, it cannot bebelieved that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – original writ petitioners arein possession of the land in question and/or at the relevant time possessionwas not taken.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A3.2 The view taken by the High Court relying upon the decision ofthis Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.(supra) is unsustainable. It is required to be noted that the decision ofthis Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.(supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passingthe impugned judgment and order has been specifically overruled by theBConstitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court in thecase of Indore Development Authority (supra) has observed andheld as under:- A

C

A

C

“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.

D

E

366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer thequestions as under:

F

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.

G

366.2. In case the award has been passed within the windowperiod of five years excluding the period covered by an interimorder of the court, then proceedings shall continue as providedunder Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if ithas not been repealed.

H

366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possessionand compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemedlapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for fiveyears or more prior to commencement of the said Act, thepossession of land has not been taken nor compensation has beenpaid. In other words, in case possession has been taken,compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly,if compensation has been paid, possession has not been takenthen there is no lapse.

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation incourt. 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 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) dueto 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 to betreated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act andas contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest AB

CD

E

F

G

H

report/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).

A

366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemedlapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have faileddue to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation forfive years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in aproceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concernedas on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passedby court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.

B

C

366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to newcause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedingsof land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending onthe date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does notDrevive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concludedproceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of modeof taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit ofcompensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidateacquisition.”

E4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above andwithout commenting upon the pending writ petition, pending before theHigh Court being Writ Petition No. 9366 of 2005, we set aside theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition(C) No. 4952 of 2015 declaring that the acquisition with respect to theFland in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of theAct, 2013.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

G

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

H