DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus RAJ SINGH & ANR. on 9 December 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.10800 of 2016 by which the High Courthas allowed the said Writ Petition and has declared that the land acquisitionproceedings with respect to the land in question under Land Acquisition H

Act, 1894 is deemed to have lapsed under Sub-section (2) of Section 24of the 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.

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt it appears that though in the counter affidavit filed before the HighCourt filed by the Land Acquisition Collector it was stated that thepossession was taken on 19.01.2006. However, the details of the paymentof compensation are not available with the LAC Branch and therefore itis not possible to state anything about payment of compensation, theHigh Court has allowed the Writ Petition and has declared that the landacquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsedunder Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the groundthat the amount of compensation was not paid to the land owners.

2.1 Now it is required to be noted that before the High Court itwas stated on behalf of the DDA that it released a sum of Rs.10 croresto the Land and Building Department way back on 28.08.1990 in respectof the land acquired. Therefore, the High Court has allowed the writpetition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respectto the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under sub-section (2) ofSection 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensationwas not actually paid to the land owners.

3. The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable in view ofthe Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Courthas observed and held as under:-

“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune MunicipalCorpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,(2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions inwhich Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has beenfollowed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji NagarResidential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. Stateof T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying downgood law, is overruled and other decisions following the same arealso overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra A

BC

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[(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 decisiontoo cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the presentjudgment.

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 commencement ofthe 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation hasto be determined under the provisions of the 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 Act as if ithas not been repealed.

366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possessionand compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemedlapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for fiveyears or more prior to commencement of the said Act, thepossession of land has not been taken nor compensation has beenpaid. In other words, in case possession has been taken,compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly,if compensation has been paid, possession has not been takenthen there is no lapse.

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation incourt. 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 land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect tothe majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation underthe 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 to betreated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act andas 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 a deemedlapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have faileddue to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation forfive years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in aproceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concernedas on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passedby court has to be excluded 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 concluded proceedingsof land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending onthe date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does notrevive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concludedproceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of modeof taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit ofcompensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidateacquisition.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A4. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and setaside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed.

The original writ petition filed by respondent no.1 herein filed beforeBthe High Court being W.P.(C) No.10800 of 2016 stands dismissed.

No costs.

C

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H