GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. versus SUDESH VERMA AND ANR. on 2 December 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WritPetition(C) No. 5258 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed thesaid writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedingsunder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,1894”) with regard to the landin question isdeemed to have lapsed underSection 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency inLand Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafterreferred to as “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.have preferred the present appeal.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passedby the HighCourt, it appears that while declaring that the acquisition proceedingsunder the Act, 1894 is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of theAct, 2013, the High Court has heavily relied upon the decision of thisCourt in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.

2.1 However, the High Court has failed to notice and consider thespecific case on behalf of the appellants that at the relevant time, thepossession could not be taken over due to the pending proceedings atthe instance of the landowners challenging the acquisition proceedings,which ended upto this Court. The original landowners failed in challengeto the acquisition proceedings upto this Court. Under the circumstances,when due to pendency of the land acquisition proceedings, the possessioncould not be taken over, thereafter, it will not be open for the landownersto contend that as the possession was not taken over, the land acquisitionproceedings be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,2013.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2.2 In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, in paragraph 366, theConstitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:- “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer thequestions as under:

B

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.

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.

C

366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possessionand 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,compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly,if compensation has been paid, possession has not been takenthen there is no lapse.

D

E

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 to compensationin accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case theobligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Actcan be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) doesnot result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case ofnon-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years F

G

H

or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the“landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisitionunder 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 concludedproceedings 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.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

624SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring thatthe land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question haslapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and thesame deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashedand set aside.B

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

C

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H