GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI versus SUNIL JAIN & ORS on 13 January 2023

[2023] 1 S.C.R. 683

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

v.

SUNIL JAIN & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2023)

JANUARY 13, 2023

[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2)–Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed– Writ petition by therespondent-original writ petitioners, being subsequent purchasersseeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining tosubject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – HighCourt in view of the fact that the possession has not been takenover and the compensation is not paid and relying upon the decisionof this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation’s case allowed the writpetition– Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Subsequentpurchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsingof the acquisition–Furthermore, possession could not be taken overdue to the pending litigation initiated by the original land ownerchallenging the acquisition which ended upto this Court, they cannotbe entitled to the benefit of lapse – Also, Pune Municipal Corporationand Anr’s case has been overruled in the Indore DevelopmentAuthority’s case – Thus, order passed by the High Court is quashedand set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors,(2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed.

Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183:[2014](1) SCR 783; Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of Indiaand Ors., (2019) 10 SCC 229, Delhi DevelopmentAuthority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., - CivilAppeal No. 3073 of 2022, Delhi Administration Thr.Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs.Pawan Kumar & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022- referred to.

683

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACase Law Reference

(2014) 1 SCR 783

referred toPara 2

(2019) 10 SCC 229

referred toPara 2.2, Para 2.3

(2020) 8 SCC 129followed

Para 2.2. 2.3

BCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.280 of2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2017 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.2989 of 2016.

Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula,CD. P. Singh Yadav, Advs. for the Appellant.

Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Ishaan Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

D1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 17.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.2989 of 2016 by which the High Courthas allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondentsherein – original writ petitioners and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed underESection 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency inLand Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafterreferred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the Government of NCT of Delhi haspreferred the present appeal.

2. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passedFby the High Court and para 5, it appears that the original writ petitionersbeing the subsequent purchasers of the land in question they do notderive any right or title to the land at the time of Award and thereaftercannot challenge the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, it was thespecific case that the original petitioners had no locus to file the writpetition and seek any relief with respect to the acquisition. From theGcounter filed before the High Court it appears that it was also the caseon behalf of the appellant and so stated in the counter affidavit that thepossession of the land in question could not be taken over due to thepending litigation which ended upto this Court upholding the acquisitionproceedings. However, thereafter and despite the above and withoutHeven considering the locus of the original writ petitioners to challenge

the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition, solely relying upon the fact thatthe possession has not been taken over and the compensation is not paidand relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,(2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petition andhas declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question isdeemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

2.1 Now so far as the locus of the original writ petitioners beingsubsequent purchasers is concerned, the said issue is now not res integrain view of the decision of the three Judge Bench of this Court is the caseof Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC229 which has been subsequently followed by this Court in the case ofDelhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building vs.Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022 and DelhiDevelopment Authority versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors,Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022. In the aforesaid decisions this Courthas specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has nolocus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition. Inthat view of the matter the High Court has materially erred in entertainingthe writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners - subsequent purchasersand declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question isdeemed to have lapsed.

2.2 Even otherwise on merits also the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court is unsustainable. Before the High Courtit was the specific case on behalf of the appellant that the possessioncould not be taken over due to the pending litigation initiated by theoriginal land owners challenging the acquisition which ended upto thisCourt. As observed and held by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority versus Manoharlal and others reported in(2020) 8 SCC 129 the period during the stay is to be excluded. If theacquiring body/beneficiary was not able to take the possession due topending litigation in a proceeding initiated by the land owner, thereafterthe land owner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of thesame and thereafter to contend that as the possession is not taken over(may be due to the pending litigation) still they are entitled to benefit oflapse.

2.3 Even the decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. (supra) which has been relied upon by the High A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACourt, has been subsequently specifically over-ruled by the ConstitutionBench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authorityversus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraph366, the Constitution 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.

C

366.2. In case the award has been passed within thewindow period of five years excluding the period covered by aninterim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue asprovided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894Act 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 under Section24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction ofauthorities for five years or more prior to commencement of thesaid 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 is nolapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession hasnot been taken then there is no lapse.

D

E

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 the provisoto Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect tomajority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as onthe date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with theprovisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interestunder Section 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, compensation under F

G

H

the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date ofnotification for land acquisition under 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 tobe treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Actand as 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 adeemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authoritieshave 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 subsistence ofinterim 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 rise tonew cause of action to question the legality of concludedproceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceedingpending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014.It does not revive stale and time- barred claims and does notreopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to questionthe legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedingsor mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead ofcourt to invalidate acquisition.”

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

[2023] 1 S.C.R.

A3. In view of the above and for the reason stated above, theimpugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainableand the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordinglyset aside. Consequently, the original writ petition filed by original writpetitioners praying for lapse of the acquisition proceedings accordinglystands dismissed.

B

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

C

Nidhi Jain

(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H