Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Haryana vs Ram Kanwar Yadav on 17 March, 2023
Bench: M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023
(Arising from SLP(C)No. /2023
@ DIARY NO. 2240/2022)
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAM KANWAR YADAV RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ Petition No.1777 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the contesting respondent herein and has declared that the acquisition of the land measuring 225 square yards as lapsed (deemed to have been 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’), the State of Haryana and others have preferred the present appeal.
Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.03.20 and order passed by the High Court, it appears that even it was the 17:11:22 IST Reason:
case on behalf of the original writ petitioner that though the contd..
- 2 -
compensation with respect to the entire land in question has been paid, the possession has not been taken over with respect to 225 square yards and, therefore, the acquisition in respect of 225 square yards is deemed to have been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that initially the total land acquired was 1125 square yards of land owned by the original writ petitioner, however, 900 square yards was released earlier as the construction was existing and the acquired land remained was 225 square yards only. Even, the original writ petitioner also deposited the compensation with respect to that portion of the land, which was released. Therefore, the compensation with respect to 225 square yards of the land was, in fact, paid to the original land owner/writ petitioner. As observed hereinabove, even it was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioner before the High Court that though the compensation has been paid, however, as the possession of remaining 225 yards is not taken, there is a deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
In view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, for the deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, twin conditions, namely, the possession not taken and the compensation not deposited/tendered are required to be satisfied.
In paragraphs 365 and 366, it is observed and held as under -
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune contd..
- 3 -
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.
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 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 contd...
- 4 -
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). 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 contd..
- 5 -
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, once the compensation was already paid, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), there shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Under the circumstances and in view of the above and applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), there shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 213 Act, as observed and held by the High Court.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, 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.
The present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
.......................... J.
(M.R. SHAH) .......................... J.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi;
March 17, 2023.
ITEM NO.38 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 2240/2022 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-12-2017 in CWP No. 1777/2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh) THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAM KANWAR YADAV Respondent(s) (IA No. 43737/2022 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 43738/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 43740/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 17-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR For Petitioner(s) Mr. B.K.Satija, A.A.G. Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR Mr. Parmanand Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Chaterjee, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned.
Leave granted The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)