DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

NEM CHAND SHARMA AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 395 of 2023)

JANUARY 20, 2023.

[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) - Lapse of Acquisition proceedings - Writ petition by the respondentoriginal writ petitioners seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) - High Court allowed the petition solely on the ground that it is not clear as to what compensation was paid and if so, who raised the dispute - On appeal, held: For attracting the provisions of s. 24(2), twin conditions of not taking over of possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition - On facts, the possession of the land was taken andhanded over to the beneficiary department initially in 1990 and thereafter, remaining 1 bigha was taken and handed over to the beneficiary department in the year 2007 - Thus, the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable and is quashed and set aside - Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783 - referred to.

Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.

(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.

Case Law Reference

[2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 2.1

[2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.395 of 2023.

[2023] 1 S.C.R. 725

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2017 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3446 of 2015.

Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Advs. for the Appellant.

Ms. Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, 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. 3446 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioners - respondents herein 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 has preferred the present appeal.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.

2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that though the High Court has observed and believed the case on behalf of the appellant and the Government of NCT of Delhi that the possession of the land in question was taken over, still, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and 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 it is not clear as to what compensation was paid and if so, who raised the dispute and whether the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894 were satisfied in accordance with the prevailing procedure. While passing the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has heavily relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3

SCC 183. However, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.

Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.

2.2 Apart from the above, even in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held that for attracting the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking over of possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the possession of the land in question was taken and handed over to the beneficiary department initially on 27.12.1990 and thereafter the remaining 1 bigha was taken and handed over to the beneficiary department on 09.02.2007. In the case of Indore Development Authority

(supra) in paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:-

"365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled.

In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether "or" has to be read as "nor" or as "and" was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NEM CHAND

SHARMA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]


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 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 nondeposit 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 nondeposit 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 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.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NEM CHAND

SHARMA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]


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."

3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed. (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Shashwat Jain, LCRAs)