Supreme Court of India
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus BATTI & ORS on 22 March 2023
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
BATTI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2023)
MARCH 22, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –Respondent was the daughter-in-law of the deceased – The deceasedwas alleged owner of the land with respect to which the landacquisition proceeding took place and the award was announcedby the land acquisition collector – Respondent approached the HighCourt contending that the possession of the land have not be takenand the compensation not being paid hence the acquisition haslapsed – The High Court found that as a matter of fact, thepossession was taken by the State but relying upon Pune MunicipalCorporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. held thatsince the compensation was not paid, therefore the acquisition inquestion has lapsed – On appeal, held: The judgment in PuneMunicipal Corporation and Another was overruled by the ConstitutionBench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority – Thefacts admitted on record it is evident that the possession of the landwas taken after the acquisition of land was complete – However,compensation was not paid – There is nothing on record to suggestas to what action was taken by the person who claimed interest inthe property to seek compensation, in case land owned by him wasacquired more than two decades back and no compensation paid –The conditions laid down in the Indore Development Authority werenot satisfied – Therefore, there cannot be lapsing of acquisition ofland.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of the impugned order passed by theHigh Court shows that the Writ Petition was allowed relying uponthe judgement of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation andAnother’s case. The case set by the writ petitioner was that lateH was the recorded owner of the land as noticed in para 2 of the
631
A
B
CDEF
G
H
Ajudgment. The writ petitioner is his daughter--in--law. Even thehusband of the writ petitioner had expired when the writ petitionwas filed. It was claimed that late H was having bhoomidari rights,however in terms of the stand taken by the appellant, no survivingmembership was placed on record. Definite and undisputed standtaken by the respondent before the High Court was that theBpossession of the land was taken after the award was announcedand the same was handed over to the Forest Department fordevelopment as green belt, agriculture and water body as theland falls in ‘O’ Zone. [Para 13][637-E-F]
2. Initially, the stand sought to be taken by the writCpetitioner before the High Court was that the physical possessionof the land had not been taken, however, the same was given up.The only argument pressed was that the compensation be paidas per the provisions of the 2013 Act. The Writ Petition wasallowed relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune MunicipalDCorporation and Another’s case. The High Court had also noticedthe fact that there was dispute about title of the property whichas per the stand taken by both the parties was kept open.Meaning thereby, even the compensation could not have beenpaid to the predecessor interest of the respondent/ writ petitioner.There is nothing on record to suggest as to what action was takenEby the person who claimed interest in the property to seekcompensation, in case land owned by him was acquired more thantwo decades back and no compensation paid. The litigation startedonly with enactment of Act of 2013. The ingredients of Section24(2) of 2013 Act as interpreted by this Court in Indore FDevelopment Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others’s case are notsatisfied in the case in hand. There cannot be lapsing of acquisitionof land. [Paras 14, 15][637-G-H; 638-A-C]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
GPune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. HarakchandMisrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1SCR 783 – referred to.
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1918of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2017 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 12135 of 2015.
With
Civil Appeal No. 1919 of 2023.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Advs.for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
4
Decisions referred to
In this index
4
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. This order will dispose of two appeals arising out of order dated30.11.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi inW.P(C) No. 12135/2015. One appeal is preferred by Delhi DevelopmentAuthority whereas the another has been filed by Government of NCTof Delhi.
3. The service on respondent is complete. However, no oneappeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing.
4. The facts of the cases are available on record. Vide notificationdated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (For short, ‘the Act’) large chunk of the land measuring about3,500 Hectares was sought to be acquired for planned development ofpart of Delhi. It was followed by notification issued on June 20, 1990under Section 6 of the Act. The Award bearing No. 13/92-93 wasannounced by the Land Acquisition Collector (DS), Delhi on 19.06.1992.
5. It is evident from the facts noticed by the High Court in theimpugned order that husband of the respondent late Mange Ram wasson of late Harkesh. He was father-in-law of the respondent no.1- writpetitioner. He was claimed to be the recorded owner of 1/12[th] share [01bigha and 19 biswas and 03 biswansi] in land bearing Khasra Nos. 281/
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A4(10-11), 282/4 (10-3) and 80(2-8) total area measuring 23 bighas and 2biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Ghari Mandu, Shahdara,Delhi.
6. There is nothing on record to suggest the acquisition in questionwas ever challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.1.BThe writ petition came to be filed in the year 2015 referring to Section24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the2013 Act”) claiming that the possession of land having not been takenand the compensation not paid, the acquisition has lapsed.
C7. The High Court noticed the fact that the possession of the landhad been taken by the State and handed over to the Forest Departmentfor development as green belt, agriculture and water body as the landfalls in ‘O’ Zone. It was further pleaded that respondent no.1 was notentitled to receive any compensation as the land, in fact, vested in GaonSabha.D
8. After considering the arguments raised by learned counselappearing for the parties, the High Court, while relying upon the judgmentof this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 held that the acquisitionin question has lapsed qua the land of the respondent no.1 as theEcompensation therefor had not been tendered. The issue regardingentitlement of compensation to the respondent as there was disputeregarding the title of the land, was kept open.
9. The arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for theappellant are that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of thisFCourt in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others(2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby earlier judgment of this Court in PuneMunicipal Corporation & Anr.’s case (supra) was overruled the orderpassed by the High Court is to be set aside. It was opined by theConstitution Bench that compliance to either of the two conditions i.e.Gtaking over of possession of the land or payment of compensation, isgood enough to sustain the acquisition. In the case in hand, from thefacts admitted on record it is evident that the possession of the land wastaken after the acquisition was complete. There was no question ofpayment of compensation to predecessor in interest of the respondentno.1 as admittedly there was dispute regarding title of the land. TheH
land is recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Even the High Court inthe impugned order had kept the question of title open.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
11. There is no dispute on the fact that the judgment of this Courtin Pune Municipal Corporation and Another’s case (supra), was reliedupon by the High Court to hold that the acquisition in question hadlapsed. It was overruled by the Constitution Bench judgment of thisCourt in the Indore Development Authority’s case (supra). Para 362thereof is extracted below:
“362. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune MunicipalCorporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and all otherdecisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has beenfollowed, are also overruled.”
12. Various questions required to be considered by the ConstitutionBench were answered in para 366 of the judgment. The same read asunder:
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer thequestions as 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 commencementof the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings.Compensation has to be determined under the provisions ofthe 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 Actas 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 proceedingsunder Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due toinaction of authorities for five years or more prior tocommencement of the said Act, the possession of land has notbeen taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words,in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation hasbeen paid, possession has not been taken then there is nolapse.
A
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(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 depositedwith respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries(landowners) as on the date of notification for landacquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitledto compensation 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 respectto the majority of holdings for five years or more,compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the“landowners” as on the date of notification for landacquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
B
C
D
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensationEas provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is notopen to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation incourt. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering theamount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refusedto accept compensation or who sought reference for higherFcompensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedingshad lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
E
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).
G366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Actand 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 Section24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been takenHthere is no lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemedlapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities havefailed 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 rise to newcause 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-barredclaims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allowlandowners to question the legality of mode of takingpossession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit ofcompensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidateacquisition.”
13. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Courtshows that the Writ Petition was allowed relying upon the judgement ofthis Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another’s case (supra).The case set by the writ petitioner was that late Harkesh was the recordedowner of the land as noticed in para 2 of the judgment. The writ petitioneris his daughter-in-law. Even the husband of the writ petitioner had expiredwhen the writ petition was filed. It was claimed that late Harkesh washaving bhoomidari rights, however in terms of the stand taken by theappellant, no surviving membership was placed on record. Definite andundisputed stand taken by the respondent before the High Court wasthat the possession of the land was taken after the award was announcedand the same was handed over to the Forest Department for developmentas green belt, agriculture and water body as the land falls in ‘O’ Zone.
14. Initially, the stand sought to be taken by the writ petitionerbefore the High Court was that the physical possession of the land hadnot been taken, however, the same was given up. The only argumentpressed was that the compensation be paid as per the provisions of the2013 Act. The Writ Petition was allowed relying upon the judgment ofthis Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another’s case (supra).The High Court had also noticed the fact that there was dispute about ABC
D
E
F
G
H
Atitle of the property which as per the stand taken by both the parties waskept open. Meaning thereby, even the compensation could not have beenpaid to the predecessor interest of the respondent/ writ petitioner. Thereis nothing on record to suggest as to what action was taken by the personwho claimed interest in the property to seek compensation, in case landowned by him was acquired more than two decades back and noBcompensation paid. The litigation started only with enactment of Act of2013
15. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal deservesto be allowed as the ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act as interpretedby this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal andCOthers’s case (supra) are not satisfied in the case in hand. There cannotbe lapsing of acquisition of land.
16. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned orderpassed by the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by therespondents in the High Court stands dismissed.
D
Ankit Gyan
(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)
Appeals allowed.
E
F
G
H