LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) versus HARI CHAND AND ANR. on 19 April 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. 3435 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writpetition and has declared that the acquisition with regard to the land inquestion is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right toFair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitationand Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”),the Land Acquisition Collector (South), New Delhi has preferred thepresent appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt and even as per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the LandAcquisition Collector before the High Court, it was the case on behalf ofthe appellant that the physical possession of the subject land was takenover and handed over to the beneficiary department on 14.07.1987.However, thereafter and relying upon the decision of this Court in thecase of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court hasallowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition withrespect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed on the groundthat the compensation with respect to the land in question had not beenpaid.

2.1 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by theHigh Court while passing the impugned judgment and order, has beenspecifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the caseof Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020)8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of thisCourt 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. State A

B

C

D

E

F

GH

A

of 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.

B

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.

C

366.2. In case the award has been passed within the windowperiod of five years excluding the period covered by an interimorder of the court, then proceedings shall continue as providedunder Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if ithas not been repealed.

D

366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possessionEand compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemedlapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for fiveyears or more prior to commencement of the said Act, thepossession of land has not been taken nor compensation has beenpaid. In other words, in case possession has been taken,Fcompensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly,if compensation has been paid, possession has not been takenthen there is no lapse.

E

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation incourt. 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 Section G

H

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) v. HARI CHANDAND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

31 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 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 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 Act andas 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 a deemedlapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have faileddue to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation forfive years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in aproceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concernedas on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passedby court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.

366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to newcause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedingsof land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending onthe date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does notrevive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded AB

C

DE

F

G

H

50SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aproceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of modeof taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit ofcompensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidateacquisition.”

3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreBDevelopment Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand andthe fact that the possession of the land in question was taken over on14.07.1987, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition as observedand held by the High Court. Under the circumstances, the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

C4. 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. There shall not be any deemedlapse of acquisition with respect to the land in question.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.DPending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Divya Pandey

(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Shevali Monga, LCRAs)

Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H