UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL & ORS. on 22 August 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in Writ Petition (C) No.1648 of 2015 whereby the High Court hasdeclared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the subject landDhad lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensationand Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ResettlementAct, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the Union of Indiathrough Land Acquisition Collector and Another have preferred the presentappeal.

E2. We have heard Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, learned counselappearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. S.K. Rout, learned counselappearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

3. The undisputed facts are that in the present case, the possessionof the land in question was already taken over by the appropriate authorityFin the year 1987. It is also an admitted position that the subject land hasbeen utilized way back in the year 1987 for a park by East Delhi MunicipalCorporation. However, despite the above and relying upon the decisionsof this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and anotherversus Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others reported in (2014)3 SCC 183 and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association vs. StateGof Tamil Nadu, (2015) 3 SCC 353, the High Court has declared thatthe acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land had lapsed interms of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

3.1 In a subsequent decision, a Constitution Bench of this Courtin the case of Indore Development Authority versus ManoharlalH

and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 has specifically over- ruled the decisionsof this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) andSree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra). In paragraph366 it is 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 casethe award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencementof the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensationhas to 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 underSection 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 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 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) ofthe 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 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 notreopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to questionthe legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings ormode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of courtto invalidate acquisition.”

3.2 In such a situation no relief of lapse of acquisition proceedingscan be countenanced in this case in view of the law laid down by thisCourt in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). Onceit is held that there is no lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section24(2) of the 2013 Act, the land which has stood vested with the appellantcontinues to do. Also, there is no question of payment of anycompensation to the writ petitioners in respect of the suit land as per theAct, 2013.

However, the original writ petitioners shall be entitled tocompensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per Award No.102/1986-87 dated 19.09.1986 as referred to by the High Court in para 3 ofthe impugned judgment and order or in the event any enhancement issought by the original writ petitioners in accordance with law.

3.3 In view of the above and for the reason stated above, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring thatthe acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject land has lapsed interms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 and directing the authorities to pay the compensation to the writpetitioners in respect of the suit land as per Act 2013 deserves to bequashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.Consequently, the writ petition filed by the private respondents beforethe High Court stands dismissed.

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

A

B

C

DE

Ankit Gyan(Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)

FAppeal allowed.

G

H