DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus NEM CHAND SHARMA AND ORS. on 20 January 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WritCPetition (C) No. 3446 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed thesaid writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioners – respondentsherein and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”)with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandDAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafterreferred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority haspreferred the present appeal.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment andEorder passed by the High Court.

2.1From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt, it appears that though the High Court has observedand believed the case on behalf of the appellant and theGovernment of NCT of Delhi that the possession of theFland in question was taken over, still, the High Court hasallowed the writ petition and has declared that theacquisition with respect to the land in question is deemedto have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solelyon the ground that it is not clear as to what compensationwas paid and if so, who raised the dispute and whether theGprovisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894 weresatisfied in accordance with the prevailing procedure. Whilepassing the impugned judgment and order, the High Courthas heavily relied upon the earlier decision of this Court inthe case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.HHarakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3

2.2

SCC 183. However, it is required to be noted that thedecision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. (supra) has been subsequentlyoverruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Courtin the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.

Apart from the above, even in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra), the Constitution Benchof this Court has observed and held that for attracting theprovisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditionsof not taking over of possession and not tendering/payingthe compensation are to be satisfied and if one of theconditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any deemedlapse of acquisition. In the present case, as observedhereinabove, the possession of the land in question wastaken and handed over to the beneficiary department initiallyon 27.12.1990 and thereafter the remaining 1 bigha wastaken and handed over to the beneficiary department on09.02.2007. In the case of Indore Development Authority(supra) in paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Benchof this Court has observed and held as under:- “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in PuneMunicipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] ishereby overruled and all other decisions in which PuneMunicipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] hasbeen followed, are also overruled. The decision in SreeBalaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji NagarResidential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353]cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruledand other decisions following the same are also overruled.In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018)3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso toSection 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor”or as “and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore,that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of thediscussion in the present judgment.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

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 depositof 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 of

compensation (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).

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.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

A366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does notgive rise to new cause of action to question the legalityof 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 reopenBconcluded proceedings nor allow landowners to questionthe legality of mode of taking possession to reopenproceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in thetreasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”

3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the ConstitutionCBench decision in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court isunsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and isaccordingly quashed and set aside.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. PendingDapplications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Nidhi Jain

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

Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H