GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI versus RATIRAM & ORS. on 20 January 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi datedB13.02.2017 in Writ Petition (C) No. 8685 of 2015 by which the HighCourt has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the privaterespondent herein and has declared that the acquisition with respect tothe land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2)of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to asC“Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the presentappeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt and even from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellantand others before the High Court, it appears that it was the specificDcase on behalf of the appellant and other original respondents that thepossession of the land in question was taken on 21.03.2007. In paragraphs6 and 7 in the counter affidavit, it was stated as under:- “6. That as per the record, the land in question, i.e., Khasra No.17(4-12), 18(3-14), 38(1-12), 41(1-16), 42(1-10) admeasuring 13Ebighas 04 biswa (petitioner is having 1/12[th] share) situated at therevenue estate of village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Delhi, wasnotified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23.09.1989followed by declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Acton 20.06.1990 for Planned Development of Delhi. In pursuanceFof said notification, notices under section 9 & 10 as provided underthe Act, were issued to the interested persons, inviting the claimsfrom all the interested persons and claims were also filed by theinterested persons including the predecessor(s) in interest of thepresent petitioners with respect to the above said land in question.The then Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No. 8/92-93Gdated 19.06.1992 after considering the claims of the claimants. Itis pertinent to mention here that the bearing Khasra No. 861/639(1-15) is not acquired.

7. That the possession of the land in question was taken over andhanded over to the beneficiary department on 21.03.2007.

H

However, the compensation amount is not paid to the recordedowner.”

3. However, thereafter, without taking into consideration the factumof taking the possession of the land in question and handing over thesame to the beneficiary, by the impugned judgment and order, the HighCourt has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in questionis deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 relyingupon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,(2014) 3 SCC 183 and other decisions and solely on the ground thatthe compensation with respect to the land in question is not tendered.

4. However, the decision of this Court in the case of PuneMunicipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied uponby the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order hasbeen specifically overruled by this Court in the Constitution Benchdecision of this Court in the case of Indore Development AuthorityVs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:- “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn.[Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune MunicipalCorpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014)3 SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in SreeBalaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v.State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying down goodlaw, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled.In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], theaspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether “or” hasto be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed for consideration.Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussionin the present judgment.

366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questionsas 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 of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

the 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 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 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 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 Section 31(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 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.”

5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand andconsidering the fact that the decision of this Court in the case of PuneMunicipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied uponby the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order hasbeen overruled, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACourt is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and setaside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, presentappeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt, declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in questionBis deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, is herebyquashed and set aside. Consequently, the original writ petition standsdismissed.

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

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

D

Nidhi Jain