DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DAYANAND & ORS. on 9 December 2022

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No. 3357 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writpetition preferred by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaserand has declared 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) ofthe Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as“Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferredthe present appeal.

2. We have heard Shri Nitin Mishra, learned counsel appearingon behalf of the appellant and Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearingon behalf of respondent No. 1 .

3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt, and even as per the counter affidavit filed by the Land AcquisitionCollector and the DDA, it appears that the possession of the subjectland had been taken on 26.11.2012 and was handed over to DDA.However, thereafter, the High Court has declared that the acquisitionwith respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed underSection 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensationin respect of the entire area of the subject land has not been paid to theoriginal writ petitioner. At this stage, it is required to be noted that assuch the original writ petitioner is the subsequent purchaser and themaintainability of the writ petition at his instance was raised before theHigh Court, however, the High Court has overruled the said petitionrelying upon the decision in the case of Government (NCT of Delhi)Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751.

3.1 So far as locus of the subsequent purchaser to challenge theacquisition proceedings is concerned, it is not res integra now in view ofthe subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

AAuthority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., - Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022, which has been subsequently followed in the case ofDelhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and BuildingDepartment & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., - Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022.

B3.2 In the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra), it isobserved and held that the subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claimlapsing of the proceedings under the Act, 2013. In that view of the matter,the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser had no locus to filethe writ petition to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings underSection 24(2) of the Act, 2013.C

3.3 Even otherwise, on merits also, the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the ConstitutionBench decision of this Court in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In the saiddecision, it is observed and held that for lapsing of the acquisition underDSection 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, of not taking over thepossession and not paying / tendering the compensation, are required tobe satisfied. In the said decision, it is further observed and held that ifone of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be deemed lapse ofthe acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. InEparagraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed andheld as under:- “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer thequestions as under:

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer thequestions as under:

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case theFaward 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 interimGorder 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 deemedHlapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 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 landacquisition 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 in A

B

C

D

E

F

GH

AState 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 failedBdue 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.

C366.9. 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 modeDof 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 for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed byEthe High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The original writ petitionfiled before the High Court stands dismissed. However, it is observedthat if the compensation is not paid to the recorded owner, as and when,recorded owner and/or the person entitled to claim compensation underthe Act, 1894, approaches for claiming compensation, the same be paidin accordance with law.F

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Devika GujralG

Appeal allowed.

H