THE SECRETARY, LAND & BUILDING DEPT. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS versus OM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. on 20 January 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 18.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 5664 of 2014, by which, the High Courthas allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisitionDproceedings with respect to the land(s) in question is deemed to havelapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCTof Delhi and Delhi Development Authority have preferred the presentEappeals.

2. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of theLand Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued as far back as on 23.01.1965.Award was declared on 09.01.1981. According to the Govt. of NCT ofDelhi and as per the counter affidavit filed before the High Court,Fpossession of the land in question was taken over and handed over tothe beneficiary department on 23.09.1981. However, payment ofcompensation with respect to the land(s) in question could not beascertained due to torn condition of the Naksha Muntzamin.

2.1 That after a period of approximately 24 years, from the dateGof passing of the Award and on the Act, 2013 coming into force, to takethe benefit of the said Act, the respondent(s) herein – original writpetitioners filed the writ petition(s) before the High Court in the year2014, for declaration that the acquisition with respect to the lands inquestion is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013,contending, inter-alia, that full compensation in accordance with theHLand Acquisition Act, 1894 was not tendered.

THE SECRETARY, LAND & BUILDING DEPT. GOVT. OF NCT OFDELHI v. OM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

2.2 However, without taking into consideration the fact thatpossession of the lands in question was taken over and handed over tothe beneficiary department on 23.09.1981, the High Court, by theimpugned judgment and order has declared that the acquisition withrespect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed to the extent oforiginal writ petitioners share, as it appears from the counter affidavitthat it cannot be clearly ascertained as to whether compensation inaccordance with law was tendered to the land owners.

2.3 The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable in view ofthe decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC129. In paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observedand held as under: - “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answerthe questions 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 ofcommencement 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 compensation

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

in 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 landownerswho had refused to accept compensation or who soughtreference for higher compensation, cannot claim that theacquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the2013 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 authorities THE SECRETARY, LAND & BUILDING DEPT. GOVT. OF NCT OFDELHI v. OM PRAKASH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

have 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 subsistenceof interim 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 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.”

2.4 Thus, as per the decision of this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) forattractingSection 24(2) of the Act,2013, twin conditions of not taking possession and not tenderingcompensation have to be satisfied. It is observed and held that if one ofthe conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any lapse under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.5 Even otherwise, the High Court has not properly appreciatedthe fact that the grievance with respect to not tendering the fullcompensation was made for the first time in the year 2014 i.e., after aperiod of 24 years from the date of passing of the Award and it was thespecific case on behalf of the department that payment of compensationwith respect to the lands could not be ascertained due to torn conditionof Naksha Muntzamin. Nothing is on record to demonstrate that at anypoint of time till the writ petition was filed before the High Court, anygrievance was made with respect to non-tendering of the fullcompensation. Be that as it may, fact remains that possession of thelands in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiarydepartment on 23.09.1981. Under the circumstances, applying the lawlaid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority(supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court isunsustainable.

3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(C) No. 5664/2014 declaring that the acquisition with respect to thelands in question is deemed to have lapsed, is hereby quashed and setaside. Civil Appeal preferred by the Land and Building Department,Govt. of NCT of Delhi accordingly stands allowed. No costs.

4. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeal preferred by theBLand and Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, allowing thesaid appeal and quashing and setting aside the judgment and order passedby the High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 5664/2014 as above, no furtherorder is required to be passed in Civil Appeal preferred by the DelhiDevelopment Authority which stands disposed of in terms of the presentorder.C

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

D

Nidhi Jain

(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

Appeals disposed of.

E

F

G

H