AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRA versus ANEK SINGH AND OTHERS on 20 May 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CivilDMiscellaneous Writ Petition No.13927 of 2016 by which the High Courthas allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents hereinoriginal writ petitioners and has held that the acquisition proceedingswith respect to the land in question shall be deemed to have lapsedunder Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair CompensationEand Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ResettlementAct, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the AgraDevelopment Authority, Agra has preferred the present appeal.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Wehave perused and considered the impugned judgment and order passedFby the High Court.

3. Before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of theAgra Development Authority – appellant herein that as such the possessionof the land in question was already taken over and even the name of theAuthority was mutated in the revenue records. It was also the specificcase on behalf of the Authority that possession of the land in questionGwas with them but the original writ petitioners illegally occupied it again.It was also the case on behalf of the Authority that the developmentworks have already been carried out on the land in question and theentire compensation had already been deposited with the Special LandAcquisition Officer. It was also the case on behalf of the Authority thatHthe original writ petitioners deliberately did not take the compensation

for the remaining plot measuring 6 Biswa and 15 Biswansi and therefore,on account of the fault of the writ petitioners, the acquisition proceedingscannot lapse. However, by the impugned judgment and order the HighCourt has held and declared that the acquisition proceedings with respectto the land in question shall be deemed to have lapsed under sub-section(2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the amount ofcompensation was not actually paid to the land owners. While holding sothe High Court has relied upon and considered the decision of this Courtin the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another versusHarakchand Misirimal Solanki and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC183.

3.1 Thus, while passing the impugned judgment and order theHigh Court has solely relied upon the decision of this Court in the caseof Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and other decisions in whichthe decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) wasfollowed. (Para 12 of the impugned judgment and order)

However, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation (supra) has been subsequently over-ruled by theConstitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority versus Manoharlal and others, 2020) 8 SCC 129. Inparagraph 366 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 under Section24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction ofauthorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

said 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

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.

B

C

D

366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensationEas 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 claimFthat the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act.

E

E

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).

G

H

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRA v. ANEK SINGHAND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

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.

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.”

4. In view of the above Constitution Bench decision of this Courtin the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and the earlierdecision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation(supra) has been specifically overruled by this Court, which has beenrelied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment andorder, the same passed by the High Court is unsustainable and it deservesto be quashed and set aside.

4.1 In view of the decision of this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) and considering the facts andcircumstances narrated hereinabove, it cannot be said that the acquisitionproceedings with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsedunder the provisions of the Act, 2013.

5. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons statedabove present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, thewrit petition preferred by the original writ petitioner before the HighCourt stands dismissed.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orderas to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeal allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H