DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHAKUNTLA DEVI AND ORS.

                          [2023] 1 S.C.R. 787                           787


               DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                              A
                                  v.
                  SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 342 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 when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by the
private respondent-writ petitioner seeking declaration that             C
acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have
lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition on
the ground that compensation has not been paid or tendered –
Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Possession was taken
over by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to the
beneficiary by drawing panchnama – Applying the law laid by this        D
Court in Indore Development Authority’s case, the order of the High
Court is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
        Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
        (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
                                                                        E
                        Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1                  followed               Para 4
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.342 of
2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2018 of the High Court    F
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.5053 of 2016.
        Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Advs. for the Appellant.
      Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula,
Advs. for the Respondents.
                                                                        G
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      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. 5053 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed
                                                                        H
                                 787
788             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A     the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original
      writ petitioner 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, 2013
B     (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority
      has preferred the present appeal.
             2. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act,
      1894 was issued on 27.06.1996. The Award was also passed vide Award
      dated 22.06.1999. According to the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC)
C     and as per the counter affidavit filed by the LAC before the High Court,
      it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the original
      respondents that the actual vacant peaceful possession of the subject
      land falling in Khasra No. 759(4-16) was taken on 31.12.2013 in which
      the original writ petitioner is having 1/4th joint share, i.e., admeasuring 1
      bigha on the spot and handed over to the requisition agency by preparing
D
      proper possession proceedings on the spot. Despite the above and
      without further commenting upon the taking over of the possession,
      thereafter, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared
      that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
      have lapsed on the ground that the compensation has not been paid/
E     tendered to the original writ petitioner. However, as observed hereinabove,
      the High Court has not disputed and/or taken into consideration the taking
      over of the possession by the LAC and handing over to the beneficiary
      by drawing the panchnama on the spot on 31.12.2013.
             3. The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable in view of
      the decision of the Constitution bench of this Court in the case of Indore
F
      Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC
      129. In paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed
      and held as under:-
                     “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
             questions as under:
G                    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
H            window period of five years excluding the period covered by an
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. SHAKUNTLA DEVI                              789
            AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

   interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as          A
   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          B
   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         C
   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      D
   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
                                                                           E
   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.      F
          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     G
   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.

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


A                  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
B           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
C
            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
D           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.
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.”
            4. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
F
      Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order
      passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and is
      accordingly quashed and set aside.
            Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
            Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
G
      Nidhi Jain                                                 Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)




H