[2016] 6 S.C.R. 986

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER

MAHENDER SINGH AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 9596of2016)

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016

[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.2./(2) - Stay granted in respect of one of the lands covered by the s.4(1) notification of the 1894 Act - Effect on the other lands covered by the same notification - Jn the instant land acquisition proceedings, award was passed under the 1894 Act - After passing the award u/s.11 of the 1894 Act, no compensation was paid and possession was also not taken within five years prior to 01.01.2014, wh_en 2013 Act came into effect - Therefore, in terms of s.24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act in respect of respondents' land have lapsed - Since lapse u!s.24(2) is post-award, that would affect only the land referred to in the award and not the enlire land covered by the s.4(1) notification of the 1894 Act under which the proceedings for acquisition were initiated - Therefore, effect of stay cannot be extended to entire land - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.4(1), 6, 9, Jl, JJA.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.JJA - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) - Difference between lapse ul s. JJA and lapse u!s.24(2) - Discussed.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Under the scheme of acquisition, an award u/ s.11 has to be passed in respect of each land owned by a person/ G persons intereste~. Therefore, what is lapsed u/s.llA is not the entire land as declared u/s.6 but the particular land belonging to person/persons in whose favour an award u/s.11 had to be passed within two years of the declaration u/s.6 of the 1894 Act. [Para

10][992-B-C]

H 986

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER v. MAHENDER

SINGH AND OTHERS

1.2 The lapse is limited only to the land covered by the particular award(s). [Para 11)(992-D-E]

Laxman Pandya and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2011) 14 SCC 94; Mulchand Khanumal Khatri v. State of Gujarat and others (2012) 5 SCC 365: 2012 {2) SCR 586; Singareni Collieries Company Limited v. Vemuganti Ramakrishan Rao and others

(2013) 8 SCC 789: 2013 (9) SCR 658 - referred to.

2. The crucial difference between lapse u/s.llA of the 1894 Act and that u/s.24(2) of the 2013 Act is that the former is a preaward situation whereas the latter is post-award. In other words, what gets lapsed u/s.llA of the 1894 Act is the ... "entire

proceedings for the acquisition of the land", whereas, u/s.24(2) of the 2013 Act, what gets lapsed is the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which has culminated in passing of an award u/s.11 but where either possession is not taken or compensation not paid within five years prior to 01.01.2014. [Para 13)(993-B-D]

3. Since lapse u/s.24(2) of the 2013 Act is post-award, that would affect only the land referred to in the award an<I not the entire lands covered by the s.4(1) notification under which the proceedings for acquisition were initiated.

In the instant case, there is no dispute on facts that after passing the award u/s.11 of . the 1894 Act, no compensation has been paid and the possession also has not been taken within five years prior to 01.01.2014.

Therefore, s.24(2) of the 2013 Act has to operate, and the acquisition proceedings in respect of respondents' lands where award u/s.11 of the 1894 Act had been passed, have lapsed. [Paras

15, J6J[993-1;_-GJ

Om Prakash v. Union of India and others (2010) 4 SCC 17 : 2010 (2) SCR 447 - held inapplicable.

Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh 2016 (8) G SCALE 655 - referred to.

Case Law Reference

(2011) 14 sec 94 referred to Para 11

2012 (2) SCR586 referred to Para 11

2013 (9) SCR658 referred to Para 11

2016 (8) SCALE 655 referred to Para 14

2010 (2) SCR447 held inapplicable Para 15

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9596 of2016.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.05.2014 of the High Court of Delhi afNew Delhi in WPC No. 1823 of2014.

Ms. Pinki Anand, ASG, Kailash Vasudev, Neeraj Kumar Jain, R.

S. Sethi, Sr. Advs., R. K. Rathore, Ms. Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Shailender Saini, Ms. Gunwant Dara, Harish Khinchi, Shadman Ali, D. S. Mahra, Atulesh Kumar, Meenesh Kumar Dubey, (for Mrs. Sushma Suri), Minish Dubey, M. K. Maroria, ShadmanAli, Vikas K. Singh, T. N. Singh, Govind Goel, Ankit Goel, Vaibhav Anand, Ram Naresh Yadav, Kuna) Verma,

Prasanna Mohan, Ms. Yugandhara P. Jha, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms.

Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Monika, Sukrit R. Kapoor, Gopal Sankara Narayan, Sumeer Sodhi, Arjun Nanda, Zeeshan Diwan, T. Mahi pal, Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Girish Chandra, Ms. Archana Kumari, Sum it Bajaj, Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya, (for Mis Saharya & Co.), .Rajiv Ghawana, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Ashwani Kumar, Rahul Bhatia, Anil Kaushik, Raghavinder Verma, Rajinder Singh, Abhishek Mishra, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi; Sachin Sood, Kailash Pandey, Ms. Kritika Arora, K. V. Sreekumar, Vinay Kumar Shailendra, Vaibhav Asthana, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Amit Gupta, Sarwa Mitter, Ms. Asmita Singh, Ms. Mansi Kukreja, (for M/s Mitter & Mitter), Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KURIAN, J.: I. Leave granted.

2. For the purpose ofoperation of Section 24(2) of the The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "2013 Act"), whether the stay granted in one of the items covered by the very same Section 4( 1) notification could have the effect on other lands covered by the same notification, is the short question involved in this appeal.

SHORT FACTS A

3. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated by publishing Section 4( I) notification under the 1894 Act on 04.03 .2003. Section 6 declaration was duly published on 04.02.2004 and the award was passed under Section 11 on 03.02.2006. It is not in dispute that neither physical possession has been taken nor compensation paid within five years prior B to the implementation of2013 Act.

4. 2013 Act came into force into effect on 01.01.2014. The High Court rendered a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings have elapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Thus aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court.

5. It is the main contention of the learned Counsel forthe appellants that in view of the stay order granted by the High Court in respect of the adjoining land covered by the Section 4(1) notification dated 04.03.2003, the acquisition proceedings could not be completed within time. The benefit of the operation of stay should be extended to the entire lands D covered by Section 4(1) notification and that such period should be excluded wl)ile computing the period of five years referred to under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. To buttress the point, the learned Counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Om Prakash v. Union oflndia and others•.

6. Om Prakash (supra) was a case where stay operated for certain lands notified under Section 4( I) of 1894 Act, and on account of such stay, the declarations under Section 6 were made after the prescribed period. However, in view of the Explanation under Section 6, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the

notification issued under Section 4(1) had been stayed by an order of the F court, was liable to be excluded. It was held by this Court that the interim order of stay granted in some of the lands notified under Section 4( I) of the 1894 Act would put a complete restraint to proceed with the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, meaning thereby, the benefit of that interim stay could be extended to the entire lands covered by Section G 4( I) notification.

7. Paragraphs-70 to 72 in Om Prakash case (supra) have dealt with the issue and they are extracted herein below:

1 (2010) 4 sec 11 H

"70. Perusal of the opinion of the Full Bench in B.R. Gupta- ! would clearly indicate with regard to interpretation of the word "any" in Explanation I to the first proviso to Section 6 of the Act which expands the scope of stay order granted in one case of landowners to be automatically extended to all those landowners, whose lands are covered under the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act, irrespective of the fact whether there was any separate order of stay or not as regards their lailds. The logic assigned by the Full Bench, the relevant portions whereof have been reproduced hereinabove, appear to be reasonable, apt, legal and proper.

71. It is also worth mentioning that each of the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act was composite in nature.

The interim order of stay granted in one of the matters i.e.

Munni Lal and confirmed subsequently ha:ve been reproduced hereinabove. We have also been given to understand that similar orders of stay were passed in many other petitions. Thus, in the teeth of such interim orders of stay, as reproduced hereinabove, we are of the opinion that during the period of stay the respondents could not have proceeded further to issue declaration/notification under Section 6 of the Act. As soon as the interim stay came to be vacated by virtue of the main order having been passed in the writ petition, the respondents, taking advantage of the period of stay during which they were restrained from issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, proceeded further and issued notification under Section 6 of the Act.

72. Tims, in other words, the interim orderof stay granted in one of the matters of the landowners would put complete restraint on the respondents to have proceeded further to issue notification under Section 6 of the Act. Had they issµed the said notification during the period when the stay was operative, then obviously they may have been hauled up for committing contempt of court. The language employed in the interim orders of stay is also such that it had completely restrained the respondents fro11J proceeding further in the matter by issuing declaration/notification under Section 6 of the Act."

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELI-ii AND ANOTHER v. MAHENDER

SINGH AND OTHERS [KURIAN, J.]

8. On the same analogy, it is contended that the benefit of stay preventing lapse of one or more of the acquisition proceedings by operation of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act should be extendableto entire lands for which the acquisition proceedings were initiated as per Section 4( I) notification under the 1894 Act.

9. There is one situation of lapse under the 1894 Act itself. In Section 11 A, as under Section 6, the Explanation has saved the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the declaration under Section 6 was stayed by an order of the court. But what is lapsed under Section I IA are the proceedings for acquisition of the particular land for which an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act had to be passed. Section 11 has to be preceded by a notice under Section 9 of the said Act to the persons interested in the land to be acquired.

Section 9 of the 1894 Act reads as follows:

"9. Notice to persons interested.-(!) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him.

(2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice), and to state the nature of the\r respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under section 8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent.

(3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (ifany) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate.

A ( 4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to hini at his last known residence, address or place of business and 37 [registered under sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6of1898)]."

J 0. Under the scheme of acquisition, an award under Section J J has to be passed in respect of each land owned by a person/persons interested. Therefore, what is lapsed under Section I J A is not the entire land as declared under Section 6 but the particular land belonging to person/persons in whose favour an award under Section J J had to be passed within two years of the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act.

J I. Effect of lapse under Section J I A was subject matter of many decisions of this Court. In Laxman Pandya and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others2, Mulchand Khanumal Khatri v. State of Gujarat and others3, Singareni Collieries Company Limited v.

Vemuganti Ramakrishan Rao and others\ etc., this Court has consistently taken the view thatthe lapse is limited only to the land covered by the particular award(s).

J 2. Section 24(2) of the 20 J 3 Act also deals with a similar situation oflapse. The provision reads as follows:

"24. xxxx x.xxx x.xxx x.xxx

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the F Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section J J has been made five years or more prior to' the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, G shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

(2011) 14 sec 94 ' t2012i 5 sec 365 H

'(2013)8SCC789

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect ofa majority of land holding has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

13. The crucial difference between lapse under Section 1 lA of the 1894 Act and that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is that the former is a pre-award situation whereas the latter is post-award. In other words, what gets lapsed under Section 11 A of the 1894 Act is the ... "entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land", whereas, under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, what gets lapsed is the land acquisition proceedings initiated under The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which has culminated in passing of an award under Section 11 but where either possession is not taken or compensation not paid within five years prior to 01.01.2014.

14. The land acquisition proceedings referred under Section 24

(2) of the 2013 Act would include the steps for taking physical possession of the land and payment of compensation, as held by this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh5 •

15. Since the lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is postaward, that would affect only the land referred to in the award and not the entire lands covered by the Section 4( 1) notification under which the proceedings for acquisition were initiated. Therefore, the ratio in Om Prakash (supra) is of no avail to the appellants.

16. In the case before us, there is no dispute on facts that after passing the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, no compensation has been paid and the possession also has not been taken within five years prior to 01.0l.2014. Therefore, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act has to operate, and the acquisition proceedings in respect of respondents' lands where award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act had been passed, have lapsed.

17. However, the declaration as above and the consequent dismissal of this appeal is without prejudice to the liberty available to the appellants to initiate proceedings afresh for the acquisition of the subject

'2016 (8) SCALE 655

land under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

18. Jn the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellants are given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for initiation of the acquisition proceedings afresh.

19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

20.

The appeal is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs.

C Ankit Gyan Appeal disposed of.