DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus CHANDERMAL & ORS. on 15 December 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 03.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in Writ Petition(C) No. 2255 of 2016 by which the High Court hasallowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein andhas declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question isFdeemed to have lapsed underSection 24(2) of the Right to FairCompensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), theDelhi Development Authority (DDA) as well as the Government of NCTof Delhi have preferred the present appeals.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court hasGdeclared that the acquisition with regard to the subject land is deemedto have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground thatthe compensation in respect of the subject land has not been tenderedto the original writ petitioners – respondents herein. However, it isrequired to be noted that before the High Court, it was the specificHcase on behalf of the appellants, more particularly, the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) that the possession of the land in question was takenby the LAC and was handed over to the DDA. The High Court hasalso believed the taking over of the possession by the LAC, butthereafter on the ground that the compensation has not been tenderedto the original writ petitioners, the High Court has declared that theacquisition is deemed to have lapsed.

3. Referring to the possession certificate dated 26.05.1998 reliedupon on behalf of the appellants (Annexure P/4), learned counselappearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners has submitted that inthe said possession certificate, there is no reference of “taking over ofthe possession of the subject land” by the LAC from the original writpetitioners – predecessors. It is submitted that it only mentions “handingover of possession by the Tehsil staff to the Land and BuildingDepartment”. It is submitted that as per Section 16 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 only the Collector was empowered to take possession andpossession taken by his subordinate cannot be said to be lawful. It issubmitted that therefore the possession so alleged to be taken on26.05.1998 cannot be said to be lawful possession. Reliance is placed onthe decision of this Court in the case of E.A. Aboobacker and Ors.Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 560. It is furthersubmitted that as such the contesting respondents herein disputes theactual taking over of possession and according to them, they are inpossession of the land in question.

4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respectiveparties at length.

5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the HighCourt, a counter affidavit was filed by LAC as well as DDA and inwhich it was specifically mentioned that the land in question was handedover to DDA on 26.05.1998 and therefore, the acquisition is completeand the lands vest in the Government and free from any encumbrances.Nothing is on record that any rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf ofthe original writ petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by the LAC orDDA. Nothing is on record that at any point of time, the original writpetitioners – predecessors made any grievance that the possession takenover on 26.05.1998 was not lawful. Even the High Court in the impugnedjudgment andorder has believed the stand taken by the LAC that thepossession of the subject land hasbeen taken over. Under thecircumstances, it is too late and/or not permissible on the part of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aoriginal writ petitioners to now contend that the possession taken overon 26.05.1998 was not lawful.

5.1 As observed and held hereinabove, solely on the ground thatthe compensation in respect of the subject land has not been tendered tothe original writ petitioners, the High Court has declared that theBacquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question is deemed tohave been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. It is required tobe noted that in the present case, a notification under Section 4 of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in 1964 and the award wasdeclared on 10.12.1997 and the possession was handed over to DDA on26.05.1998. So far as the submission on behalfof the original writCpetitioners that “in the possession certificate dated 26.05.1998, therewas no mentionof taking over of possession of the subject lands by theLand Acquisition Collector from the original writ petitioners –predecessors” is concerned, mere non-mention of taking over ofpossession cannot be a ground not to believe the possession certificateDin which it is specifically mentioned that the possession of the land inquestion is handed over to the DDA. What is relevant is handing over ofthe possession to the DDA.

5.2 The view taken by the High Court that the acquisition is deemedto have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground thatEthough the possession of the subject lands hasbeen taken over but thecompensation in respect of the subject lands has not been tendered isjust contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the caseof Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020)8 SCC 129. In paragraph 366, it is observed and held by this Courtasunder:-F“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 hasGto be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

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 itHhas not been repealed.

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

C

D

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.”

E6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainableand the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordinglyquashed and set aside.

Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the factsFand circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

G

Devika Gujral

Appeals allowed.

H