UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR versus RAJESH KUMAR AND ORS. on 13 March 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No. 9269 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said writpetition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated underEthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”)with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafterreferred to as “Act, 2013”), the Union of India through Land AcquisitionFCollector, New Delhi has preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellantbefore the High Court that the possession of the land in question hasbeen taken. Even in the writ petition before the High Court in para (c),the original writ petitioner had admitted that on 22.09.1997, the possessionGof the agricultural land (land in question) has been taken. Despite theabove and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of PuneMunicipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand MisirimalSolanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and solely on the ground thatthe compensation has not been paid or tendered, the High Court has H

declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemedto have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.1 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by theHigh Court, has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Courtin the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal andOrs., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the ConstitutionBench of this Court has observed and held as under:- “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.

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 Section AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

24(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 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 in State 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 ormode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of courtto invalidate acquisition.”

3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand andmore particularly, when even the original writ petitioner also admittedthat the possession of the land in question was taken on 22.09.1997,there shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act,2013. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashedand set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. There shall notbe any deemed lapse of the acquisition with respect to the land in question.The original writ petition before the High Court stands dismissed.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Nidhi Jain

Appeal allowed.

(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H