LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR. versus ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. on 13 March 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. 3581 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the saidwrit petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to theland in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of theRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as“Act, 2013”), the Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. have preferred thepresent appeal.

2. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court it can be seen that by the impugnedjudgment and order the High Court has declared that the acquisitionwith respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed on theground that neither the possession of the land in question was taken northe compensation has been tendered/paid and relying upon the earlierdecision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation andAnr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC183, and decision of the High Court in the case of Gyanender Singh &

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

AOrs. Vs. Union of India & Ors decided on 23.09.2014 in W.P. (C)No. 1393/2014.

3. However, it is required to be noted that before the High Courtit was the specific case on behalf of the appellant(s) and so recorded bythe High Court in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment and order thatBthe physical possession could not be taken because of the operation ofstay order passed in writ petitions in which the stay order was continuing.The High Court has also observed that “it is an admitted position that thestay order continued to operate till 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act cameinto effect.” In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, the Constitution Bench ofCthis Court has observed in paragraph 366 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 case theDaward 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.

366.2. In case the award has been passed within thewindow period of five years excluding the period covered by anEinterim 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”.FThe 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 noGlapse. 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 to H

majority 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 thecompensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, itis not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court.The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount underSection 31(1). The landowners who had refused to acceptcompensation or who sought reference for higher compensation,cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed underSection 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.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A366.9. 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 theBlegality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings ormode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of courtto invalidate acquisition.”

A

4. Thus, as per the decision of Constitution Bench of this Court inthe case of Indore Development Authority (supra) the period duringCwhich the stay was operating is to be excluded.

5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand andmore particularly, even when the Act, 2013 came into force the stayorder continued to operate and due to which the possession of the landDin question could not be taken, there shall be no deemed lapse underSection 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

6. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of thisCourt in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) by theHigh Court and the decision of the High Court in the case of GyanenderESingh (supra) are concerned, the decision of this Court in the case ofPune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been overruled by theConstitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority (supra). The decision of the High Court in the case ofGyanender Singh (supra) is just contrary to the decision of this CourtFin the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). Therefore,the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court isunsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed byGthe High Court allowing the writ petition and declaring that the acquisitionin respect of the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The original writpetition before the High Court stands dismissed. There shall be no deemedlapse of the acquisition with respect to the land in question under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013.H

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR. v. ASHOK201KUMAR & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.APending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR. v. ASHOKKUMAR & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

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

Appeal allowed.

B

C

D

E

F

G

H