DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAMBIR AND ORS

                          [2023] 1 S.C.R. 901                          901


              DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                              A
                                 v.
                       RAMBIR AND ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No.362 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) –
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – High Court relying on the decision in     C
Pune Municipal Corporation case declared that the acquisition
proceeding initiated under the 1894 Act w.r.t the subject lands is
deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in
Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the decision
of Constitution bench in Indore Development Authority case –
Applying the law laid down in Indore Development Authority and         D
more particularly, considering the fact that the possession of the
land in question was taken over in the year 2007 and handed over
to the beneficiary department, the impugned judgment passed by
the High Court is set aside.
        Indore Development Authority v.Manoharlal                      E
        and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 –
        followed.
        Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs.Harakchand
        Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
        1 SCR 783 – referred to.                                       F

                       Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783               referred to             Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1                 followed                Para 2
                                                                       G
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.362 of
2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.5441 of 2017.
                                                                       H
                                901
902             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
      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.
B     Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Rachita Kadyan, N. S. Vashist, Gagan Gupta,
      Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, Advs.
      for the appearing parties.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C           M. R. SHAH, J.

             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
      judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
      Writ Petition(C) No. 5441 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed
D     the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings
      initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
      as “Act, 1894”) with regard 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,
E     2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development
      Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.

             2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
      respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and
F     order passed by the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case
      on behalf of the LAC/DDA before the High Court and so stated in the
      counter filed that the possession of the land in question was taken over
      and handed over to the beneficiary department in the year 2007. Despite
      the above and relying upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case
G     of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
      Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has
      declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed
      to have lapsed on the ground that the compensation was not tendered to
      the original landowners as per Section 31 of the Act, 1894. However,
H     the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAMBIR AND ORS.                              903
                 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

and Anr. (supra) has been specifically overruled by the Constitution         A
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and
366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:-

            “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal       B
      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        C
      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          D
      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.
                                                                             E
            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       F
      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         G
      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”.
                                                                             H
904      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     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
D     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
E     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
F
      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
G
      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
H     be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAMBIR AND ORS.                              905
                 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

             366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act         A
      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          B
      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           C
      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.                                             D
             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.
                                                                             E
      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.”
                                                                             F
      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, considering the fact that the possession of the land in
question was taken over in the year 2007 by drawing the panchnama /
possession report and was handed over to the beneficiary department,         G
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,

                                                                             H
906              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

             Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.


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




C




D




E




F




G




H