Delhi Development Authority vs Jagan Singh

2023 INSC 620 NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4335 OF 2023

Delhi Development Authority … Appellant

versus

Jagan Singh & Ors. … Respondents

JUDGMENT

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

Interlocutory Application No.37319 of 2022

1. We have recorded reasons for condoning the delay in the

main judgment.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

2. The first respondent filed a Writ Petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi for

questioning the acquisition of the lands subject matter of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.07.13

Writ Petition. The acquisition was under the provisions of the 17:22:31 IST Reason:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’). The Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 1 of 13 notification under sub­Section (1) of Section 4 of the 1894 Act

was issued on 23rd June 1989, which culminated in an award

under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, which was made on 18 th June

1992. In the meanwhile, in the year 1990, the first respondent

filed a Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings,

which was dismissed on 20 th May 2005. On 19th January 2006,

the appellant took over possession of the acquired land. With

effect from 1st January 2014, the 1894 Act was repealed and the

provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

(for short, ‘the 2013 Act’) were brought into force. On 25 th May

2015, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition contending that in

view of sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the

acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. By the impugned

judgment and order dated 11th August 2016, by relying upon a

decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal

Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki &

Ors.1, the High Court held that sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of

the 2013 Act will apply as the compensation has not been paid to

the first respondent although physical possession of the acquired

1 (2014) 3 SCC 183 Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 2 of 13 land has been taken over by the appellant. The High Court,

however, directed the appellant to pay compensation to the first

respondent in accordance with the 2013 Act.

3. On 6th March 2020, a Constitution Bench of this Court in

the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal &

Ors.2 expressly overruled its earlier decision in the case of Pune

Municipal Corporation & Anr.1 and all other decisions based on

the said decision. It was held by the Constitution Bench that

another decision of this Court in the case of Sree Balaji Nagar

Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 3 was

not correct. Even this decision was relied upon in the impugned

judgment.

4. The Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development

Authority2 interpreted sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013

Act. Sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act reads thus:

“24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.– (1) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub­ section (1), in case of land acquisition 2 (2020) 8 SCC 129 3 (2015) 3 SCC 353 Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 3 of 13 proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 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, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings 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.” (emphasis added)

5. In paragraph 366.3 of the decision of the Constitution

Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority2, it was

held thus:

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

366.1. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

366.2. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

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 Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 4 of 13 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. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..”

(emphasis added)

6. In the present case, as recorded in the impugned judgment,

there is no dispute that the possession of the acquired land was

taken over on 19th January 2006. Therefore, in terms of the

decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore

Development Authority2, sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the

2013 Act will have no application even though the compensation

has not been paid.

7. Now, we propose to record reasons for condoning the delay.

The main question is whether the delay of 1231 days in

approaching this Court should be condoned. On factual aspects,

it must be noted that paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment

records that the acquired land has been utilised for the third

respondent­Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) for its car

Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 5 of 13 maintenance depot at Kalindi Kunj under the MRTS Project

(Phase­III). By the order dated 17th February 2023, this Court

directed the appellant to file on record the present status of the

acquired land. Along with the affidavit filed on 13 th April 2023,

photographs have been placed on record which are not disputed

by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

Therefore, we can proceed on the footing that the acquired land

has been utilised for a public purpose by DMRC for the metro

depot as correctly recorded in paragraph 2 of the impugned

judgment.

SUBMISSIONS

8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is

that the acquired land has already been put to use for public

purposes. He urged that now the acquisition cannot be declared

as lapsed based on a decision which has been expressly

overruled. He urged that the reasons for the delay have been

properly explained.

9. The strong opposition by the first respondent to the

application for condonation of delay is firstly on the ground that

for a long delay of 1231 days, there is absolutely no explanation.

Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 6 of 13 His submission is that in fact, the conduct of the appellant as

well as the Government of NCT of Delhi shows that they

acquiesced to the impugned judgment. He submitted that while

dealing with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act, 1963, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the

successful litigant has acquired valuable rights on the basis of

the judgment which is the subject matter of challenge. He

submitted that it is well settled that the Courts cannot adopt a

different approach while dealing with the applications for

condonation of delay made by the State or its agencies and

instrumentalities and that they should be treated on par with

other litigants. He submitted that merely because the judgment

in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.1 was

overruled by a subsequent judgment of the Constitution Bench,

the appellant cannot succeed unless the long delay is explained

by showing sufficient cause.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has

relied upon the order dated 22nd December 2017 of the appellant

which contains a policy dealing with the question of initiating

fresh acquisition proceedings where the acquisition has been

Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 7 of 13 declared as lapsed under sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the

2013 Act. He submitted that in view of the policy and since the

acquired land has been already utilised for public purposes, the

direction of the High Court in the impugned judgment to pay

compensation to the first respondent in accordance with the

2013 Act, needs to be upheld.

OUR VIEW

11. There cannot be any dispute about the proposition of law

canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the first

respondent. However, there cannot be any hard and fast rule to

decide whether sufficient cause exists. It all depends on the facts

and circumstances of each individual case.

12. Over the years, this Court has repeatedly held that a liberal

and justice­oriented approach needs to be adopted in the matters

of condonation of delay so that the substantive rights of the

parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay. The power

under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must be exercised in

a very meaningful manner which will serve the ends of justice.

13. It is true that the fact that the decision on which the

impugned judgment is based has been overruled is by itself no

Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 8 of 13 ground to condone a long delay. In the facts of this case, it is

true that the Special Leave Petition has been filed two years and

three days after the date of the decision of the Constitution

Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority2.

14. In this case, admittedly, the acquired land has been used by

DMRC for the metro depot and the metro depot exists on the

acquired land as noted in the impugned judgment. Thus, when

the Writ Petition was filed invoking sub­Section (2) of Section 24

of the 2013 Act, the acquired land was already put to use for an

important public purpose of the metro depot. The use of the land

for public purposes for the last several years is certainly a

relevant factor for adopting a liberal approach while considering

the prayer for condoning the delay. We may also note here that

the petition invoking sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act

was filed by the appellant nearly seventeen months after the

2013 Act came into force. In a case where the land was not put

to use for a public purpose, the approach of this Court while

deciding the application for condonation of a long delay in such a

case would have been different.

Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 9 of 13

15. The policy incorporated in the notification dated 22 nd

December 2017 will apply to those cases where the acquisition

has been validly held to have lapsed. Therefore, in the facts of the

case, the said policy is of no help to the first respondent.

16. We find that the application for condonation of delay has

been drafted rather casually. However, considering the peculiar

facts of the case, which we have discussed above, by adopting a

justice­oriented and liberal approach, the delay will have to be

condoned.

17. The High Court has issued a direction to pay compensation

to the first respondent in terms of the 2013 Act. The said

direction was issued in the context of the fact that the Court was

declaring the acquisition as lapsed notwithstanding the fact that

the acquired land was already used for an important public

purpose. Once it is held that the acquisition under the 1894 Act

continues to be valid, the first respondent is disentitled to claim

compensation payable in terms of the 2013 Act which was not

applicable to the acquisition. However, the appellant is entitled to

receive compensation already determined under the award made

under the 1894 Act.

Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 10 of 13

18. Before we part with the judgment, while looking at the

photographs of the metro depot constructed on the acquired land

which have been produced along with an affidavit dated 15 th April

2023, we noticed that a part of the pavement abutting the metro

depot which is a part of the acquired land has been already

occupied by “a car clinic” and other vendors. A citizen has lost

his valuable property by way of compulsory acquisition. The

compulsory acquisition has been made for a public purpose and

therefore, the appellant and all the concerned authorities cannot

allow the pavement to be used for any purpose except for

allowing people to walk. We hope and trust that either the

appellant takes immediate action on this behalf or calls upon the

authorities empowered to take action to do the needful

immediately in accordance with the law.

19. Though, the appeal succeeds, considering the conduct of

the appellant, we saddle the appellant with costs of ₹50,000/­

Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 11 of 13

20. Accordingly, we allow the Appeal on the following terms:

a.We quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order

dated 11th August 2016;

b.The Writ Petition (C) No.3819 of 2015 filed by the first

respondent before the High Court of Delhi stands dismissed;

c.We direct the appellant to pay costs quantified at ₹ 50,000/­

to the first respondent within a period of one month from

today;

d.We direct the first respondent to furnish his Bank Account

details along with a photocopy of a cancelled cheque of the

said account to the advocate for the appellant. The

appellant shall make online payment of the amount of costs

by transferring the same to the account of the first

respondent;

e.If the compensation determined as per the Award made

under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has not been yet paid till

date, the appellant and /or the second respondent shall pay

the same to the first respondent in the manner provided in

clause (d) as above within a period of one month from today.

Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 12 of 13

21. We hope and trust that the appellant and all other

concerned authorities shall take serious note of the observations

made by us in paragraph 18 above and take necessary action in

accordance with law.

………………….J. (Abhay S. Oka)

..………………..J. (Sanjay Karol) New Delhi;

July 13, 2023.

Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023 Page 13 of 13