Delhi Development Authority vs Bhagwat Singh

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7961 OF 2022

Delhi Development Authority …Appellant(s)

Versus

Bhagwat Singh & Ors. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

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. 10359 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ

petition preferred by the private respondent herein – original writ

petitioner, and has held and declared that the acquisition with respect to

the land in question has 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. Having gone through the Impugned judgment and order passed by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by

the High Court, it is seen that the High Court has ordered lapsing of the SONIA BHASIN Date: 2022.11.02 13:39:00 IST Reason:

land in question under Section 24 of the Act, 2013 relying upon the

1 decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and

Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183

and on the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the

landowners. However, it is required to be noted that before the High

Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the Delhi Development

Authority that the possession of the land in question has already been

taken. As observed hereinabove on the ground that the compensation

has not been paid to the landowner relying upon the decision of this

Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), the

High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the

acquisition with respect to the land in question has lapsed.

3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal

Corporation and Anr. (supra) relied upon by the High Court has been

overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of

Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8

SCC 129 and in paragraph 366, it is ultimately concluded 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.

2 366.2. 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 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).

3 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.

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

4. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Indore

Development Authority (supra), specifically overruling the decision of

this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra)

relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and

order, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is

unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present

appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the original

writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner stands dismissed.

………………………………….J. [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J. NOVEMBER 02, 2022. [M.M. SUNDRESH]

5