DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus NARVADA DEVI & ORS. on 9 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. 3383 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed thesaid writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein and hasdeclared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemedDto have lapsed by virtue of Section 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) has preferred the present appeal.

2. Before the High Court, the respondent No. 1 – original writEpetitioner claimed the relief for a declaration that the acquisitionproceedings pertaining to land measuring 504 sq. yards out of KhasraNo.49/14 situated in the area of Village Pehladpur Bangar, NationalCapital Territory of Delhi are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section24(2) of the Act, 2013 as neither physical possession of the subject landhas been taken nor the compensation has been tendered to the petitioner.F

2.1 Before the High Court and so stated in the counter affidavit,it was the case on behalf of the appellant – DDA that as such thepayment of compensation in respect of the award amounting to Rs.80,40,76,004/- was released to L & B Department, GNCTD by chequedated 09.08.2005. It was also the case on behalf of the DDA that theGland measuring area 457 Bigha 08 Biswa, Village Pehladpur Bangar isin possession of the DDA but the remaining area is in illegal occupationin the nature of residential houses, factories, Katha Jat along withboundary wall and the steps are taken by the DDA to remove them buton and off the land grabbers encroach upon the DDA land. It was alsoHthe case on behalf of the appellant - DDA that so far as the original writ petitioner is concerned, he has encroached on the Government landclaiming himself to be the owner.

2.2 Despite the above and without appreciating the reasons fornot taking the actual vacant possession of the remaining land, though asper the possession proceedings dated 31.08.2005, physical possessionof the land measuring 457 Bigha was taken over and handed over to theDDA, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared thatthe acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to havelapsed.

3. The view taken by the High Court is just contrary to theConstitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC129. In paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observedand 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.

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 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 compensation or whosought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that theacquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013Act.

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 authorities have 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. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand andthe stand taken by the DDA in the counter filed before the High Court,the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court isunsustainable.

4.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the High Court wasconscious of the fact that the actual physical possession is not capableof being taken due to illegal occupation by the encroachers. Though, theHigh Court has granted the declaration that the acquisition proceedingswith respect to the subject lands are deemed to have lapsed, the HighCourt has observed that the original writ petitioner would only be entitledto compensation as per Act, 2013.

4.2 As observed and held hereinabove, the original writ petitionershall not be entitled to the relief of declaration of lapsing of the acquisitionproceedings. Once that be so, there is no question of payment of anycompensation to the original writ petitioner as per the Act, 2013. Underthe circumstances also, the impugned judgment and order passed by theHigh Court is unsustainable.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, presentappeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the original writpetition being Writ Petition (C) No. 3383 of 2016 stands dismissed.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

394SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2023] 1 S.C.R.

APresent 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.

Bibhuti Bhushan BoseB(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H