GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI versus MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS on 15 December 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015 by which the High Court hasBallowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 – originalwrit petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect to theland in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of theRight to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to asC‘the Act 2013’), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred thepresent appeal.

2. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1894) with respect to the landin question was issued as far as back on 10.11.1960 followed by theDdeclaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 dated 06.01.1969. The awardwas declared on 31.01.1983. According to the Department and the LandAcquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit on behalf ofthe original respondent nos. 1 & 2 before the High Court the possessionof the disputed land in question along with the other lands were takenover and handed over to DDA on 04.03.1983. That in the year 2015 theErespondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court challengingthe acquisition proceedings including the Notification under Section 4 ofthe Act, 1894 and also for a declaration that the acquisition with respectto the land in question is deemed to have been lapsed by virtue of Section24(2) of the Act, 2013.F

2.1 Though it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant andthe Land Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavitbefore the High Court that the possession of the land was taken on04.03.1983 and the same was handed over to DDA, without going intothe controversy of the physical possession, by the impugned judgmentGand order and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of PuneMunicipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand MisirimalSolanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that thecompensation has not been tendered to the land owner, the High Courthas allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition withrespect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under SectionH24(2) of the Act, 2013. Hence, the present appeal.

3. As observed hereinabove, it was the specific case on behalf ofthe appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector before the High Courtthat the possession of the land in question was taken over on 04.03.1983and the same was handed over to the DDA. It is required to be notedthat the original acquisition is of the year 1960 and the writ petition waspreferred challenging the acquisition in the Notification under Sections 4& 6 after a period of almost 55 years. By the impugned judgment andorder the High Court has allowed the writ petition relying upon the decisionof this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra)observing that the compensation has not been tendered.

3.1 However, as per the recent decision of the Constitution Benchof this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versusManoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 for the purposeof lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions of nottaking over possession and not tendering/paying the compensation arerequired to be satisfied. As per the decision in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) if one of the conditions is not satisfied,there shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the case of Indore Development Authority(supra) the Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically over-ruledthe decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporationand Anr. (supra) which has been relied upon by the High Court whilepassing the impugned judgment and order.In paragraphs 365 and 366,the Constitution Bench of this Court has 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[(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.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

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 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 to compensationin accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case theobligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Actcan be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) doesnot result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case ofnon-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five yearsor more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the“landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisitionunder 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.”

4. In view of the above and according to the possession certificateand the specific case on behalf of the appellant and the Land AcquisitionCollector that the possession of the land in question was taken over on A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, theimpugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to bequashed and set aside.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt allowing the Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015 and declaring theBacquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question is deemed tohave lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed andset aside.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

C

Devika Gujral

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H