DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus BEENA GUPTA (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. on 16 January 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3986 of 2018 by which the High Courthas allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein– original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respectDto the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as‘the Act 2013’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred thepresent appeal.

E2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide Notificationdated 17.06.2005 issued under the provisions of Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 large tract of the land measuring about 200 Bighasfalling in Village Mundaka was sought to be acquired. A declarationunder Section 6 of the Act was issued and published thereafter on31.05.2006. In the present case the dispute is with respect to the landFmeasuring 1 Bigha and 2 Biswas out of Khasra No. 65/22/1. That, videsale deed dated 17.06.2005, the said land was purchased by one AshokKumar and Raj Kumar Sharma. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.08.2005,the aforesaid persons came to be mutated in the revenue records. Thatthereafter vide GPA, Will, Affidavit, Agreement to sell and Receipt datedG11.05.2010 the aforesaid Raj Kumar Sharma sold 275 sq. yrds. land, out of 11 Biswas owned by him, to respondent no.1 herein – original writpetitioner. Thus, the respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner can besaid to be subsequent purchaser who acquired the right, title or interestin the land in question much after the land acquisition proceedings andthe award was declared, which was declared on 31.05.2007.

H

2.1The respondent no.1 herein – original writ petitioner filedAthe writ petition before the High Court to declare that theacquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed tohave lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on theground that the compensation with respect to the land inquestion is not paid.

BC

2.2Though it was specifically the case on behalf of the appellantbefore the High Court so stated in the counter affidavit thatthe possession of the land in question was taken over on15.12.2007 by drawing the panchnama and that the originalwrit petitioner being subsequent purchaser had no locus tochallenge the acquisition, by the impugned judgment andorder the High Court has entertained the writ petitionpreferred by respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner andhas declared that the acquisition with respect to the land inquestion is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) ofthe Act, 2013.

D

2.3. As held by this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr.Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 whichhas been subsequently followed by this Court in the case ofDelhi Administration Through Secretary, Land andBuilding vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil AppealNo.3646 of 2022 and Delhi Development Authorityversus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil AppealNo.3073 of 2022, the subsequent purchaser had no locusto challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisitionunder the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances the HighCourt has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petitionpreferred by the respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner– subsequent purchaser who had acquired the right, title orinterest in the land in question subsequent to the acquisitionproceedings, subsequent to passing of the award. Underthe circumstances the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court is unsustainable.

EFG

2.4Even otherwise on merits also and in light of the subsequentdecision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the caseof Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlaland others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 the impugned H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring theacquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed tohave lapsed is unsustainable.

2.5As observed hereinabove it was the specific case on behalfof the appellant before the High Court and so stated in thecounter before the High Court that the possession of theland in question was taken over on 15.12.2007.

2.6In the case of Indore Development Authority (supra)the Constitution Bench of this Court in paragraph 366 hasobserved and held as under:-

366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, weanswer the questions as under:

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a)in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the dateof commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse ofproceedings. Compensation has to be determined underthe provisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2. In case the award has been passed withinthe window period of five years excluding the periodcovered by an interim order of the court, thenproceedings shall continue as provided under Section24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it hasnot been repealed.

366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2)between possession and compensation has to be readas “nor” or as “and”. The deemed lapse of landacquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities forfive years or more prior to commencement of the saidAct, the possession of land has not been taken norcompensation has been paid. In other words, in casepossession has been taken, compensation has not beenpaid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensationhas been paid, possession has not been taken then thereis no lapse.

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part ofSection 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in caseit has not been deposited with respect to majority oflandholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as onthe date of notification for land acquisition under Section4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation inaccordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In casethe obligation under Section 31 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit ofcompensation (in court) does not result in the lapse ofland acquisition proceedings. In case of non- deposit withrespect to 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.

366.5. In case a person has been tendered thecompensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisitionhas lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment ornon-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation topay is complete by tendering the amount under Section31(1). The landowners who had refused to acceptcompensation or who sought reference for highercompensation, cannot claim that the acquisitionproceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013Act.

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

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is bydrawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once awardhas been passed on taking possession under Section 16of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is nodivesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act,as once possession has been taken there is no lapseunder Section 24(2).

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providingfor a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in caseauthorities have failed due to their inaction to takepossession and pay compensation for five years or morebefore the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceedingfor land acquisition pending with the authority concernedas on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interimorders passed by court has to be excluded in thecomputation of five years.

B

366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does notgive rise to new cause of action to question the legalityCof concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date ofenforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does notrevive stale and time- barred claims and does not reopenconcluded proceedings nor allow landowners to questionDthe legality of mode of taking possession to reopenproceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in thetreasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”

2.7. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case ofIndore Development Authority (supra), on merits alsoEthe impugned judgment and order passed by the High Courtdeclaring that the acquisition with respect to land in questionis deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,2013 is unsustainable.

3. In view of the above and for the reason stated above the present Fappeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land is deemed tohave lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is accordingly quashedand set aside. Consequently, the original writ petition filed by respondentno.1 filed before the High Court stands dismissed.

GPresent appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Nidhi Jain

(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Shashwat Jain, LCRAs)

Appeal allowed.

H