GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR versus MANJEET SINGH ANAND & ANR. on 20 January 2023

[2023] 1 S.C.R. 771

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

v.

MANJEET SINGH ANAND & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 360 of 2023)

JANUARY 20, 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 – Subject land acquired in the year 1964, and inthe year 1967 the physical possession of the land was taken bydrawing panchnama as also compensation was deposited –Thereafter, writ petition by the respondent no. 1 claiming that theacquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act with respectto the subject land deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) – Allowed bythe High Court – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable –Respondent no. 1-original writ petitioner not the recorded ownerand he filed the writ petition on the basis of some documents, GeneralPower of Attorney, receipts – Subsequent purchaser has no locusto challenge the acquisition – Impugned judgment contrary to lawlaid down by this Court in the Indore Development Authority’s case– Thus, the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petitionpreferred at the instance of respondent No. 1-original writ petitionerand is quashed and set aside.

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

Smt. Harbans Kaur Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.W.P.(C) 5358 of 2014, decided on 02.02.2015; PuneMunicipal 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.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2023] 1 S.C.R.

A

Case Law Reference

BCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.360 of2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2017 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.7004 of 2015.

Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, RahulCPandey, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. SujeetaSrivastava, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal,Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Smita Maan,Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Shekhar Yadav, Ms.Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Rachita Kadyan, N. S. Vashist, Gagan Gupta,DMs. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, Advs.for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentEand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WritPetition(C) No. 7004 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed thesaid 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 regardFto the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as“Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have preferredthe present appeal.

G2. In the present case, the land in question was acquired in theyear 1964 and the notification under Section 4 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was issued on 13.02.1964. Award was made on 12.05.1967.That according to the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), the physicalpossession of the land in question was taken on 07.06.1967 and thecompensation was duly deposited with the Reference Court onH13.11.1967. That thereafter on the Act, 2013, coming into force, the

respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner on the basis of some documents– General Power of Attorney, receipts etc. filed the writ petition beforethe High Court and prayed for lapse of the acquisition under Section24(2) of the Act, 2013. Though a specific plea was raised before theHigh Court that the respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner has nolocus to challenge the acquisition and the recorded owner is somebodyelse, relying upon the decision of the High Court in the case of Smt.Harbans Kaur Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. [W.P.(C) 5358of 2014, decided on 02.02.2015], the High Court has allowed the saidwrit petition.

2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt, it appears that in the case of Smt.Harbans Kaur (supra), theHigh Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case ofPune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand MisirimalSolanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.

2.2 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. (supra), which was relied upon by the HighCourt while deciding the case of Smt. Harbans Kaur (supra), hasbeen specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court inthe case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal andOrs., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the ConstitutionBench of this Court 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:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

G

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).

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894Act and 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 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 subsistenceof interim 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 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.”

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A2.3 Even otherwise, the High Court has materially erred inentertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein.As per the case on behalf of the appellant and so stated in the counteraffidavit, the respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner was not therecorded owner and he filed the writ petition on the basis of somedocuments – General Power of Attorney, receipts etc. As held by thisBCourt in the case of Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India andOrs., (2019) 10 SCC 229 and in the subsequent decisions in the caseof Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. &Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 and Delhi AdministrationThr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. PawanCKumar & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022, the subsequentpurchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapse of acquisition.Under the circumstances also, the High Court has committed a veryserious error in entertaining the writ petition preferred at the instance ofrespondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner.

D3. In view of the above and applying the law laid down by thisCourt in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra), and when the acquisition was of theyear 1964 and the possession was taken over in the year 1967 by drawingthe panchnama [which is held to be taking the possession in accordancewith law as observed and held by this Court in the case of IndoreEDevelopment Authority (supra)], the impugned judgment and orderpassed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to bequashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.FPending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Nidhi Jain(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

G

H