DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus JAGAN SINGH & ORS. on 17 February 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3164 of 2015 by which the High CourtBhas allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein– original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respectto the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to asC‘the Act 2013’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred thepresent appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt and even as per the finding recorded by the High Court in para 3,the physical possession of the subject land was admittedly taken onD16.07.2007. However, thereafter relying upon the decision of this Courtin the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki and Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and onthe ground that the compensation has not been paid to the originalpetitioner, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and hasdeclared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemedEto have lapsed.

2.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the earlier decisionof this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.(supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court has beenspecifically over-ruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in theFcase of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal andothers reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. In the said decision it isspecifically observed and held that once the possession was takenover there shall not be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the2013 Act.GIn paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Courthas 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 inHwhich 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 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 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 theproviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited withrespect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisitionunder Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensationin accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case theobligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Actcan be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does notresult in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case ofnon- deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for fiveyears or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paidto the “landowners” as on the date of notification for landacquisition 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 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 aproceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Acti.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time- barred claimsand does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landownersto question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopenproceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasuryinstead of court to invalidate acquisition.”

3. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) and applying the same to the facts inthe case on hand the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in questionis deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashedand set aside.

3.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring thatthe acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to havelapsed is hereby quashed and set aside.

The original writ petition preferred by the respondent – originalwrit petitioner filed before the High Court stands dismissed.

Present appeal is allowed. No costs.

Divya Pandey

Appeal allowed.

(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H