Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Delhi Development Authority vs Surinder Kumar Puri on 23 February, 2022
Bench: M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30283 of 2018)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SURINDER KUMAR PURI & ORS. Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. IA No.173135/2019 (for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1), is allowed, in terms of the prayer made and they are ordered to be brought on record in the present proceedings.
1A. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – Delhi Development Authority (for short, ‘DDA’), learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal representatives of the original land owner - Mr. Surinder Kumar Puri, who are brought on record pursuant to our order passed in I.A. No. 173135/2019.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2018 passed by Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jatinder Kaur Date: 2022.03.03 17:07:57 IST 2078/2016, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition Reason:
preferred by the original land owner and has also declared that the land 2 acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘1894 Act’) with regard to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed, the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.
4. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has declared that the land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act have lapsed under Sub Section (2) of Section 24 of the “The Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013” (for short, ‘2013 Act’) solely on the ground that though the award has been declared more than 5 years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, the land owner has not been paid the compensation.
5. The view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129. In the concluding paragraph 366, it is held 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 provision 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 3 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Acct, 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 not 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). 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 4 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.”
6. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
7. The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
………………………………J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………J.
FEBRUARY 23, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30303 of 2018)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9989/2015, by which the High Court, after noting the fact that the possession of the land in question has not been taken and compensation has not been paid, has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original land owners and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question are deemed to have lapsed, in terms of Sub-
section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘2013 Act’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority as well as the learned counsel 6 appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. From the impugned order, it appears that while passing the impugned order, the High Court has relied upon on the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Another v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Others, (2014) 3 SCC 183.
However, in view of the subsequent Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v.
Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) is no longer a good law and the same has been specifically overruled by this Court.
In the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra), this Court has concluded in paragraph 366 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 provision 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 Acct, 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 not 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 7 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 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.”
5. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by this Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed 8 and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
6. The present appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
7. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
………………………………J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………J.
FEBRUARY 23, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
9
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30286 of 2018)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
DHARAMVIR & ORS. Respondent(s)
ORDER
1. Nobody appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 herein, though served.
2. Leave granted.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 172/2015, by which the High Court, after noting the submission that the possession of the suit lands was not taken over and furthermore the compensation was not tendered, has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original land owners and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question are deemed to have lapsed, in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘2013 Act’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the 10 present appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
5. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 has held in paragraph 366 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 provision 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 Acct, 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 not 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-
11payment 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 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.”
6. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is just contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra).
7. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by this Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
8. The present appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
12 ………………………………J. [M.R. SHAH] NEW DELHI; ………………………………J. FEBRUARY 23, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA] 13 IIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO……. OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19507 of 2021) GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANOTHER Appellant(s) VERSUS BRAHM SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO……. OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.30302 of 2018) DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS BRAHM SINGH & ORS. Respondent(s) ORDER 1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5051/2016, by which the High Court, while relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Others, (2014) 3 SCC 183, has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original land owners and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in 14 question are deemed to have lapsed, in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘2013 Act’), the Government of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Development Authority have preferred the present appeals.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original land owners.
4 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that, even the High Court has also noted that the physical possession of the land in question was already taken over by the Appellant and handed over to the beneficiary i.e. DDA and thereafter, to the DTTDC on 17.02.2008.
5. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), relied upon by the Delhi High Court while passing the impugned order, has been overruled by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. In the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra), this Court has concluded in paragraph 366 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 provision 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 15 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 Acct, 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 not 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). 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 16 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.”
6. Therefore, in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra), relied upon decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) is no longer a good law. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
7. The present appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
………………………………J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………J.
FEBRUARY 23, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO……. OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.30284 of 2018)
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SATPAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
ORDER
1.None appears on behalf of the original land owners – respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, though served.
2. Leave granted.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5047/2016, by which the High Court, while relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Others, (2014) 3 SCC 183, has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original land owners and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question are deemed to have lapsed, in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘2013 Act’), the Delhi Development Authority has 18 preferred the present appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 & 5.
5. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that, even the High Court has also noted that the physical possession of the land in question was already taken over by the Appellant and further handed over to the DTTDC on 17.02.2008.
6. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), relied upon by the Delhi High Court while passing the impugned order, has been overruled by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. In the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra), this Court has concluded in paragraph 366 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 provision 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 Acct, 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 not lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.19
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). 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.” 20
7. Therefore, in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra), relied upon decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) is no longer a good law. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
8. The present appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
………………………………J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………J.
FEBRUARY 23, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
21
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.12 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
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 30283 of 2018 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s) VERSUS SURINDER KUMAR PURI & ORS. Respondent(s) IA No. 173135/2019 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 153506/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH Diary No(s). 29071/2020 (XIV) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.12858/2021-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.12860/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 19507/2021 (XIV-A) IA No. 103824/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) SLP(C) No. 30302/2018 (XIV-A) (TO BE NOTIFIED AS PER R/P DT.16.02.2022 IN SLP (C) NO.19507 OF 2021) SLP(C) No. 30285/2018 (XIV) SLP(C) No. 30286/2018 (XIV-A) SLP(C) No. 30284/2018 (XIV-A) SLP(C) No. 30303/2018 (XIV-A) SLP(C) No. 30304/2018 (XIV) Date : 23-02-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA For Appellant(s) Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR Mr. Dinesh Chander Trehan, Adv. Mr. Vyom chatruvedi, Adv.
Mr. Ramandeep Kaur, Adv.22
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv.
Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Adv.
Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Mr. Kumar Bhaskar, Adv.
Ms. Sneha Kohli, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Love Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vinay K. Shailendra, Adv. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR Ms. Worthing Kasar, Adv.
Ms. Raunika Johar, Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv.
Mohd. Saquib Siddiqui, Adv.
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Ms. Astha Tyagi, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 30283 of 2018 IA for substitution of the legal representatives (LRs) of deceased respondent no.1, is allowed.
Leave granted.
The Appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
SLP(C) 19507 of 2021, SLP(C) 30302 of 2018:
Leave granted. The appeals are allowed as per the signed order.
SLP(C) 30286 of 2018:
Nobody appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 though served.23
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
SLP(C) 30284 of 2018:
None appears on behalf of the original land owners – (respondent nos. 1-3), though served.
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
SLP(C) 30303 of 2018:
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
SLP(C).Diary No. 29071 of 2020 and SLP(C) No. 30285 of 2018:
List the matters on 25.02.2022.
SLP(C) No. 30304 of 2018:
As per the office report, respondent Nos. 1-6 are not served.
No further steps are taken by the petitioner to serve the unserved respondents.
At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we grant further three weeks’ time to take steps to serve respondent Nos. 1-6.
List the matter on 23.03.2022.
(JATINDER KAUR) (Shraddha Mishra) (NISHA TRIPATHI) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT Sr.P.A. BRANCH OFFICER [Signed orders are placed on the file]