DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJENDER SINGH & ORS. on 24 February 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. 3561 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed theDsaid writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect tothe land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of theRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as“Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the presentEappeal.

2. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court and even the counter affidavit filedbefore the High Court by the Delhi Development Authority wherein itFwas the specific case on behalf of the respondent therein that thepossession of lands in question was taken over and handed over to thebeneficiary department on 23.09.1981 and the compensation with respectto the said lands was sent in RD due to dispute.

3. However, thereafter despite the above and relying upon theGearlier 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 declared that the acquisitionwith respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed underSection 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensationwas not paid in the manner known to law to the land owners.H

3.1 The view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the lawlaid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development AuthorityVs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraph 366, theConstitution Bench of this Court has observed and held 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proceedings shall continue asprovided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894Act as if it has not been repealed.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.

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 to A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

the 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 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 or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of courtto invalidate acquisition.”

A

4. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the case ofIndore Development Authority (supra) for deemed lapse underSection 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, namely, (i) the possessionis not taken and (ii) the compensation is not tendered/paid are to beBsatisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be anylapse or deemed lapse under the Act, 2013.

5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to beCquashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Thereshall be no deemed lapse of the acquisition with respect to the lands inquestion.

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

D

Ankit Gyan

(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H