Delhi Development Authority vs Harinder Kaushik on 5 January, 2023

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Delhi Development Authority vs Harinder Kaushik on 5 January, 2023

Bench: M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar

                                                               1

     63.
                                              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              CIVIL APPEAL NO. 110 OF 2023
                                        (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31301/2018)

     DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                                      Appellant(s)

                                       VERSUS

     HARINDER KAUSHIK AND ORS.                                                        Respondent(s)

                                                           O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 05.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.8784/2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said 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 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.

3. From the material on record, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court that the possession of the land in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 14.07.1987. However, thereafter, solely on the ground that the compensation has not been Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R tendered, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Natarajan Date: 2023.01.09 17:02:36 IST Reason: Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has 2 allowed the Writ Petition and has declared the acquisition proceedings deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having considered the reasoning given by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). However, 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 overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129. In Paragraphs 365 and 366, this Court has observed and held as under:

“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association 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, 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 land holdings 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). 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 4 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.

5. In view of the above, the present Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

...........................J (M.R. SHAH) ...........................J (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi;

January 05, 2023 5 63.1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 111 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31302/2018) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS RISHI PAL SINGH VERMA AND ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 485 of 2016, by which the High Court has, without considering the aspect of taking over possession, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 has ordered and declared that the acquisition with respect to the entire lands 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 “the 2013 Act”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and from the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that, while passing the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case 6 of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the entire lands in question is deemed to have lapsed as the compensation was not tendered/paid. It is to be noted that it was the specific case on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority that the possession of the land in Khasra No. 212 min (2-10) out of area (5-5) was taken over on 11.03.1983 and handed over to the requisition agency i.e. the Delhi Development Authority on the spot. However, the High Court has not at all considered the aspect of possession and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), and on the ground that compensation has not been tendered has allowed the Writ Petition.

The decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), has been specifically overruled subsequently by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129. In Paragraphs 365 and 366, this Court has observed and held as under:

“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association 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, 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 land holdings 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). The landowners who had refused to 8 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).

366.9. 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.” In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. However, as the High Court has not at all dealt with and considered the aspect of taking over possession by the acquiring body and handing over the same to the Delhi Development Authority, the matter is remanded to 9 the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and in the light of decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). The present Appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

...........................J (M.R. SHAH) ...........................J (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi;

January 05, 2023 10 63.2 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31305/2018) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS KHEMCHAND AND ORS. Respondent(s) O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 02.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 10288 of 2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said 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 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.

From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears and it is not in dispute that, while passing the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183.

The decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), has been specifically overruled subsequently by the 11 Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129. In Paragraphs 365 and 366, this Court has observed and held as under:

“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association 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, 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 12 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 land holdings 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-

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).

366.9. 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.” In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court to decide and dispose of the Writ Petition afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits, however, taking into consideration the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and any other subsequent decisions which may be pointed out to the High Court.

The present Appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.

...........................J (M.R. SHAH) ...........................J (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) New Delhi;

January 05, 2023
                                 14

ITEM NO.63                COURT NO.4                SECTION XIV

               S U P R E M E C O U R T O F      I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

  Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)    No(s).     31301/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-01-2018 in WP(C) No. 8784/2015 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s) VERSUS HARINDER KAUSHIK & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 161655/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT WITH SLP(C) No. 31302/2018 (XIV) IA No. 162738/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT & IA No. 11215/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES SLP(C) No. 31305/2018 (XIV) IA No. 161686/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT SLP(C) No. 31306/2018 (XIV) IA No. 161759/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT SLP(C) No. 31307/2018 (XIV) IA No. 162753/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT SLP(C) No. 31308/2018 (XIV) IA No. 163143/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT Diary No(s). 29472/2021 (XIV) IA No. 160580/2021 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING IA No. 146598/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. Date : 05-01-2023 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. Ashwani Kumar, AOR 15 Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv.

Ms. Arti Singh, AOR Mr. Aakash Deep Singh Roda, Adv.

Ms. Pooja Singh, Adv.

Mr. Basant Pal Singh, Adv.

Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Ms. Monika, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Aman Nandrajog, Adv.

Mr. Dhruv Wadhwa, Adv.

Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Dinesh Chander Trehan, Adv.

Ms. Diksha Narula, Adv.

Mr. D.P. Singh Yadav, Adv.

Ms. Smita Maan, AOR Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv.

Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Udaibir Kochar, Adv.

Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. C. Solomon, Adv.

Shaziya Ansari, Adv.

Mr. S. Nagarajan, AOR Mr. Aftab Rasheed, Adv.

Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP (C) No. 31301/2018:

Leave granted.

The present Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application stands disposed of.

SLP(C) No. 31302/2018:

Leave granted.

The present Appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated in the signed order.

Pending applications stand disposed of.

SLP(C) No. 31305/2018:

Leave granted.

The present Appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated in the signed order.

Pending applications stand disposed of.

SLP(C) No. 31306/2018:

As per the office report, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are unserved.

Put up on 13.02.2023.

In the meantime, counsel for the petitioner to take steps to serve unserved Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

SLP(C) No. 31307/2018:

We have heard Mr. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent(s).

Leave granted.

Arguments concluded.

Order reserved.

SLP(C) No. 31308/2018:

List on 09.01.2023.

Diary No(s). 29472/2021:

We have heard Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondent(s).

Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the original writ petitioner(s), who are the subsequent purchasers, opposes the condonation of delay. However, considering the fact that the beneficiary-Delhi Development Authority has already preferred a Special Leave Petition against the very same judgment and order and the impugned judgment and order is at large before this Court, the delay caused in preferring the Special Leave Petition is, hereby, condoned.

Leave granted.

Arguments concluded.

Order reserved.

(R. NATARAJAN)                                  (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed orders are placed on the file)

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Delhi Development Authority vs Harinder Kaushik on 5 January, 2023

Bench: M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar