DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VversusSHYAMO & ORS.

                          [2023] 1 S.C.R. 887                            887


             DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                 A
                                  v.
                         SHYAMO & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 365 of 2023)
                        JANUARY 20, 2023                                 B
         [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
       Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
High Court relying on its decision in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v.
                                                                         C
Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014], allowed the writ
petition filed by the original writ petitioner-respondent no.1 herein
and declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question is deemed
to have lapsed u/s.24(2) on the ground that the compensation was
not tendered to the original writ petitioner– On appeal, held: While
deciding the Gyanender Singh case, the High Court had relied upon        D
the earlier decision of Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation
case which has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of Supreme
Court in Indore Development Authority case –Applying the law laid
down in Indore Development Authority case and more particularly
when the possession of the land in question was taken over by
                                                                         E
drawing the panchnama and preparing the possession proceedings
and the same was handed over to the DDA and furthermore, as the
original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner, there was no
question of tendering any compensation to him at the relevant time–
Also, the High Court entertained the writ petition without deciding
the ownership and title of the original writ petitioner – Impugned       F
judgmentis unsustainable, set aside.
       Land Acquisition – Writ petition challenging acquisition/lapse
of acquisition proceedings – Proving ownership and title– Held:
For entertaining any writ petition, the ownership and title has to be
first established and proved and only thereafter a person claiming       G
ownership and title can be permitted to file the writ petition
challenging the acquisition/lapse of acquisition proceedings.
      Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
                                                                         H
                                 887
888             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A             Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
              Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
              1 SCR 783 – referred to.
              Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
              Decision dtd.23.09.2014 of High Court of Delhi in
B             W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014 – referred to.
                               Case Law Reference
      [2014] 1 SCR 783                   referred to                Para 2.1
      [2020] 3 SCR 1                     followed                   Para 2.1
C             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 365 of
      2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2017 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.12174 of 2015.
             Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
D
      Pandey, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Sujeeta
      Srivastava, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal,
      Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Smita Maan,
      Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Shekhar Yadav, Ms.
      Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Rachita Kadyan, N. S. Vashist, Gagan Gupta,
E     Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, Advs.
      for the appearing parties.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              M. R. SHAH, J.

F            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
      Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12174 of 2015 by which the High Court
      has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein
      – original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect
      to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of
G     the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
      Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
      ‘the Act 2013’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the
      present appeal.
            2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
H     Court it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the LAC
  DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SHYAMO & ORS.                              889
                 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

before the High Court and so stated in the counter affidavit filed by the   A
LAC that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 was issued on 23.09.1989 for planned development of Delhi for
the acquisition of the lands falling in Village Ghonda Gujaran Khadar.
That award was declared on 19.06.1992 and the actual vacant physical
possession of the subject land was taken on 21.03.2007, out of which
                                                                            B
the original petitioner has been claiming 1/12th share on the spot and
handed over to the DDA after preparing possession proceedings on the
spot. It was also stated that the recorded owners/heirs never came
forward to receive any compensation and hence the same is lying unpaid.
However, thereafter without even deciding the question of ownership
and title of the original writ petitioner and leaving the same open and     C
relying upon its earlier decision in the case of Gyanender Singh &
Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 1393 of 2014 decided
on 23.09.2014, the High Court has passed the impugned judgment and
order and has declared the acquisition proceedings deemed to have lapsed
on the ground that the compensation was not tendered to the original
                                                                            D
writ petitioner.
       2.1 However, it is required to be noted that while deciding the
Gyanender Singh (supra) the High Court has relied upon the earlier
decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and
Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC
                                                                            E
183.It is to be noted that the decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has beenover-ruled by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority versus Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC
129.In paragraphs 365 and 366, it is observed and held as under:-
                                                                            F
                “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune
         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       G
         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
                                                                            H
890   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     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
D     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
E     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.
F
             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
G     (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
H     Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SHYAMO & ORS.                            891
               [M. R. SHAH, J.]

    compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land        A
    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.
                                                                        B
            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            C
    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        D
    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            E
    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       F
    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       G
    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
                                                                        H
892              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2023] 1 S.C.R.


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.”
B
             3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
      Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and
      more particularly when the possession of the land in question was taken
      over by drawing the panchnama and preparing the possession proceedings
      and the same was handed over to the DDA and that the original writ
C     petitioner was not the recorded owner and therefore there was no
      question of tendering any compensation to him at the relevant time, the
      impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that
      the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have
      lapsed is unsustainable.
D             4. At this stage it is also required to be noted that the original writ
      petitioner was claiming 1/12th share in the land in question. However,
      without deciding the ownership and title of the original writ petitioner the
      High Court has entertained the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1
      herein – writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect
      to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed. While deciding any
E
      ownership and title of the original writ petitioner in theland in question,
      the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition. For
      entertaining any writ petition the ownership and title has to be first
      established and proved and only thereafter a person claiming ownership
      and title can be permitted to file the writ petition challenging the acquisition/
F     lapse of acquisition proceedings. Under the circumstances also the
      impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
             5. In view of the above and for the reason stated above present
      appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the original writ
G     petition filed by respondent no.1 herein - original writ petitioner filed
      before the High Court stands dismissed.
             Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

      Divya Pandey                                                      Appeal allowed.
H     (Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)