GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI versus SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. on 10 February 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugnedjudgment and order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the High Court ofDelhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1399 of 2014, by which,Dthe High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declaredthat the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in questionis deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to FairCompensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitationand Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”),the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.E

2. It is true that there is a huge delay in preferring the appealwhich is vehemently opposed by Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learnedSenior Advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent(s)– original writ petitioner, however, taking into consideration the othersimilar orders passed by different benches in condoning such delayFin preferring the appeal challenging the order(s) passed by the veryHigh Court declaring that the acquisition is lapsed under Section 24(2)of the Act, 2013 and taking into consideration the fact that whilepassing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has reliedupon and/or followed the earlier decision of this Court in the case ofGPune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183which has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court inthe case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal andOrs., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and the observations madein paragraph 365 which is reproduced hereinbelow, in which it isH

observed that all the decisions in which the decision in the case ofPune Municipal Corporation (supra) have been relied upon standoverruled, we condone the delay and consider the appeal on merits.

3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court and even as observed by the High Court inthe impugned judgment and order, as such the possession of the landin question was taken over as far as back on 12.03.1981. However,thereafter relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of PuneMunicipal Corporation (supra) on the ground that the compensationwith respect to the land in question was not paid, the High Court hasallowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition inrespect of the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013.

4. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation (supra) relied upon by the High Court has beenoverruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case ofIndore Development Authority (supra). In paragraphs 365 and366, it is observed and held as under: - “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in PuneMunicipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled andall other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [PuneMunicipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decisionin Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji NagarResidential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannotbe said to be laying down good law, is overruled and otherdecisions following the same are also overruled. In IndoreDevelopment Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], theaspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether“or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed forconsideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, inthe light of the discussion in the present judgment.

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 AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse ofproceedings. Compensation has to be determined under theprovisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2. In case the award has been passed within thewindow period of five years excluding the period covered byan interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continueas provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the1894 Act 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 underSection 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inactionof authorities for five years or more prior to commencementof the 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 isno lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possessionhas not 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(landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisitionunder Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled tocompensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest underSection 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, compensationunder the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as onthe date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 ofthe 1894 Act.

366.5. In case a person has been tendered thecompensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed underSection 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit ofcompensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete bytendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners whohad refused to accept compensation or who sought referencefor higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisitionproceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act isto be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section24(1)(b).

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing ofinquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed ontaking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the landvests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is nolapse under 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 withthe authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period ofsubsistence of interim orders passed by court has to beexcluded in the computation of five years.

366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give riseto new 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 2013Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claimsand does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allowlandowners to question the legality of mode of taking possessionto reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation inthe treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”

5. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court for the purposeof lapsing the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, thetwin conditions namely, not taking the possession and not paying the AB

CD

E

F

G

H

Acompensation have to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is notsatisfied there shall not be any lapse of the acquisition. Therefore,once the possession of the land in question was taken over on12.03.1981 then applying the law laid down by this Court in the caseof Indore Development Authority (supra) the acquisition of theland in question is not deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) ofBthe Act, 2013. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently,Cthe writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner before theHigh Court stands dismissed.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

D

Bibhuti Bhushan BoseAppeal allowed.

(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

E

F

G

H