DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus DAYANAND & ORS.
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 829, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
829
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 829
829
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
DAYANAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9005 of 2022)
DECEMBER 09, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
Writ petition by subsequent purchaser to claim lapsing of the
acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 –
Maintainability of – Held: In the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. &
Ors., it was held that the subsequent purchaser is not entitled to
claim lapsing of the proceedings under the Act, 2013 – In that view
of the matter, the original writ petitioner-subsequent purchaser had
no locus to file the writ petition to claim lapsing of the acquisition
proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
Land Acquisition – Possession taken on 26.11.2012 and handed
over to DDA – High Court declared that the land acquisition with
respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed solely on
the ground that the compensation in respect of entire area was not
paid to the original writ petitioner (subsequent purchaser) – Held:
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal
and Ors. – In the said decision, it is observed and held
that for
lapsing of the acquisition under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin
conditions, of not taking over the possession and not paying/
tendering the compensation, are required to be satisfied and that if
one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be deemed
lapse of the acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013
– In view of the fact that the possession was taken, acquisition
proceedings is not deemed to be lapsed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: In the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., it is
observed and held that the subsequent purchaser is not entitled
to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the Act, 2013. In that
view of the matter, the original writ petitioner – subsequent
purchaser had no locus to file the writ petition to claim lapsing of
the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Even otherwise, on merits also, the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.. In the said
decision, it is observed and held that for lapsing of the acquisition
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, of not taking
over the possession and not paying / tendering the compensation,
are required to be satisfied. In the said decision, it is further
observed and held that if one of the conditions is not satisfied,
there shall not be deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. [Paras 3.2, 3.3][832-B-E]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd.
& Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 – relied on.
Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust
and Anr. (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232; Delhi
Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar & Ors. Civil
Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 4 SCR 232
referred to
Para 3
[2020] 3 SCR 1 
followed
Para 3.3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9005
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.03.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.3357/2016.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
831
Nitin Mishra, Adv. for the Appellant.
Amit Kumar, Rajnish Kumar, Ms. Neelam Singh, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and 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 writ
petition preferred by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser
and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard
to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of
the 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 preferred
the present appeal.
2. We have heard Shri Nitin Mishra, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant and Shri Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent No. 1 .
3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, and even as per the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition
Collector and the DDA, it appears that the possession of the subject
land had been taken on 26.11.2012 and was handed over to DDA.
However, thereafter, the High Court has declared that the acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under
Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation
in respect of the entire area of the subject land has not been paid to the
original writ petitioner. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as
such the original writ petitioner is the subsequent purchaser and the
maintainability of the writ petition at his instance was raised before the
High Court, however, the High Court has overruled the said petition
relying 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 the
acquisition proceedings is concerned, it is not res integra now in view of
the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DAYANAND & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
832
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., - Civil Appeal No.
3073 of 2022, which has been subsequently followed in the case of
Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building
Department & Ors. Vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., - Civil Appeal No.
3646 of 2022.
3.2 In the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. (supra), it is
observed and held that the subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim
lapsing of the proceedings under the Act, 2013. In that view of the matter,
the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser had no locus to file
the writ petition to claim lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3.3 Even otherwise, on merits also, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In the said
decision, it is observed and held that for lapsing of the acquisition under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, of not taking over the
possession and not paying / tendering the compensation, are required to
be satisfied. In the said decision, it is further observed and held that if
one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be deemed lapse of
the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In
paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and
held as
under:-
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the
award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of
the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has
to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window
period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim
order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided
under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it
has not been repealed.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession
and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemed
lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
833
2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five
years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the
possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been
paid. 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 taken
then 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 in
court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso
to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to
majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on
the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the
1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section
31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest
under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to
the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under
the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of
notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation
as provided under Section 31(1) of the
1894 Act, it is not open to
him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due
to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The
obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section
31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation
or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim
that 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 be
treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and
as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest
report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking
possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DAYANAND & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
834
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse
under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed
lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed
due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for
five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a
proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned
as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed
by 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 new
cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings
of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on
the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not
revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded
proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode
of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The original writ petition
filed before the High Court stands dismissed. However, it is observed
that if the compensation is
not paid to the recorded owner, as and when,
recorded owner and/or the person entitled to claim compensation under
the Act, 1894, approaches for claiming compensation, the same be paid
in accordance with law.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.