GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. versus RATI RAM & ANR. on 20 January 2023

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentBand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WritPetition (C) No. 12145 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowedthe said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein and hasdeclared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regardto the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) ofCthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitatio and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as“Act, 2013”), the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have preferred thepresent appeal.

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

2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt, it appears that before the High Court, the appellant and the originalrespondents challenged the locus of the original writ petitioner tochallenge the acquisition proceedings. It was the specific case on behalfEof the department that the recorded owner was the Gaon Sabha. Beforethe High Court, it was also the specific case on behalf of the department/ Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) that the possession of the land inquestion was taken over by preparing the possession proceedings on25.01.2000 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).In paragraphs 4, 6 and 7, it was stated in the counter affidavit as under:-F

“4. That the present writ petition is further liable to bedismissed as the petitioners have not placed on record anydocument showing therein their entitlement over the subjectland as they are not the recorded owners in the revenue recordsthus the petitioners are not entitled to any relief before theHon’ble Court under the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner isclaiming to be one of the successors of Late Sh. Harkesh whowas having bhoomidari rights, however no SurvivingMembership Certificate has been filed along with the writpetition. It is submitted that under the bhoomidari rights, theland remained under the ownership of Gaon Sabha as such in G

G

the present case as well, the recorded owner of the land isGaon Sabha which has not been made as a necessary party inthe present writ petition.

X X X X X X X X

6. That it is submitted that for the purpose of planneddevelopment of Delhi, the answering respondent issued aNotification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894on 23.6.1989 which was followed by Notification under Section6 of the said Act dated 20.06.1990 for planned development ofDelhi for the acquisition of the lands falling in village GarhiMendu. That an Award bearing No. 13/92-93 dated· 19.6.1992was also passed and the actual vacant physical possession ofthe subject land including other lands of the said notificationwas taken on the spot by preparing possession proceedingsdated 25.1.2000 and handed over to the DDA on the spot. Thepetitioners have also admitted about the execution of thepossessing proceedings by the Government as the petitionershave admitted that symbolic possession of the subject land wastaken by the Government. Needless to say that the petitionersnever challenged the acquisition proceedings and the possessionreport which became final and binding on the petitioners as theland vested with the Government absolutely without anyencumbrances.

7. That it is submitted that the petitioners were neverentitled to claim any compensation as the recorded owner ofthe subject land was Gaon Sabha, as such, the assertion by thepetitioners that no compensation has been paid to them findsno merits and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Thecompensation was however not paid to the Gaon Sabha aswell. “

2.2 Thereafter, relying upon the decision of this Court in the caseof Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court hasallowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respectto the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) ofthe Act, 2013. However, the earlier decision of this Court in the case ofPune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been subsequentlyoverruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case ofIndore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020)

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of thisCourt has observed and held as under:- “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in PuneMunicipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled andall other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [PuneMunicipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decisionin Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji NagarResidential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannotbe said to be laying down good law, is overruled and otherdecisions following the same are also overruled. In IndoreDevelopment Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], theaspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether“or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed forconsideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, inthe light of the discussion in the present judgment.

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 compensationin 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). 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 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 authoritieshave failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

compensation 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.

A

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.”

B

C

B

C

3. Even otherwise, without considering the title of the original writpetitioner in the land in question, when it was the specific case on behalfof the department / LAC that the recorded owner was the Gaon Sabhaand the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken overby drawing the possession receipt on the spot, the High Court hascommitted a very serious error in entertaining the writ petition at theinstance of the original writ petitioner and to declare that the acquisitionwith respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed.

D

E

4. In any case, applying the law laid down by this Court in theConstitution Bench decision in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and thesame deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashedand set aside.F

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. The original writ petitionpreferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner standsdismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, thereshall be no order as to costs.

GPending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

H