Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Delhi Development Authority vs Rajinder Singh on 9 January, 2023
Bench: M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 227/2023
[@ SLP (C) No. 900 of 2023 @ Diary No. 26275/2022]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant
VERSUS
RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. Respondents
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 743 of 2016, by which the High Court, relying on the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, has allowed the writ petition and declared that acquisition with respect 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 (for short ‘the 2013 Act’) on the ground that the compensation was not tendered in accordance with Section 13 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment and order, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has specifically admitted that the possession of the land in question was already taken over.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2023.01.13In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the 17:40:39 IST Reason: decision of this Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar 1 Lal & Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. In the aforesaid judgment, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order, has been specifically over-ruled. It is further observed and held in the decision that for lapsing of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, twin conditions viz; that the possession is not taken over and that the compensation is not tendered, are to be satisfied. It is observed and held that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, that shall not be any lapse. In paragraphs 365 and 366, it is observed and held as under:-
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association (supra) cannot be 316 said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) through L.Rs. and Ors., (supra), 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.
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 Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013.
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 Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been 2 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 Act of 2013 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 317 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 Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 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 Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or 318 non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners 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 Act of 2013.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 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 Act of 1894 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 Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, 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 3 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 Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority 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 Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land 319 acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, 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.” In view of the above and for the reasons stated, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is unsustainable and the same deserves to be and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
The civil appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
...................J. (M.R. SHAH) ....................J. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi;
January 9, 2023.
4 ITEM NO.45 COURT NO.4 SECTION XIV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 227/2023 @ SLP (C) ……………/2023 @ D.No.
26275/2022
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAJINDER SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s)
( IA No. 135395/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No. 135396/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 09-01-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR
For Appellant(s) Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. S. Nehra, AOR
Mr. Mahipal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajender Verma, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv.
Mr. R.K. Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Monish Rana, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application stands disposed of.
(MEENAKSHI KOHLI) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file]
5