GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusSHAKEEL AHMED & ORS.

                          [2023] 1 S.C.R. 395                            395


          GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                              A
                                  v.
                   SHAKEEL AHMED & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 739 of 2023)
                       FEBRUARY 09, 2023                                 B
         [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
      Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – There was
                                                                         C
ownership dispute with regard to the land in question – High Court
without going into that controversy, and relying upon the Supreme
Court decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation, allowed
writ petition preferred by respondent No.1 and declared that the
acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of
the Act, 2013 – Held: The High Court ought to have first decided         D
the ownership dispute and thereafter ought to have considered the
locus of respondent no.1 – Be that it may, the decision in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation, has been specifically overruled by the
Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority – Applying the law laid down in the case of
                                                                         E
Indore Development Authority, the twin conditions namely, not taking
the possession and not paying the compensation have to be satisfied
and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any
lapse of the acquisition – Once possession of the land in question
was taken on 04.03.1983, acquisition proceedings is not deemed to
have lapsed – Judgment of High Court unsustainable.                      F
      Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
      Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
      Misrimal Solanki & Ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 – held
      overruled.                                                         G

                       Case Law Reference
(2014) 3 SCC 183               held overruled           Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1                 followed                 Para 3
                                                                         H
                                 395
396             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 739 of
      2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2015 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.3539 of 2015mk.

B           Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Shivam Singh,
      Rohan Sharma, Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Gopal Singh, Ms. Iti Sharma, Rahul
      Bhatia, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish
      Vashist, Roshan Kumar, Nitin Mishra, Sahil Tagotra, Abhishek Pandey,
      Ms. Abhivyakti Banerjee, Ms. Sakshi Garg, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Advs. for
      the appearing parties.
C
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
D     and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition
      (C) No. 3539 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 land 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
E
      24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
      Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
      referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
      have preferred the present appeal.

F            2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court and even from the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it
      appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and
      original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken
      on 04.03.1983 and even before the High Court, there was an ownership
      dispute insofar as the subject land is concerned between the original
G     writ petitioner and the original respondent No. 5. However, despite the
      above and without going into the controversy of the physical possession,
      relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
      Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,
      (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition
H     and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
   GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. SHAKEEL                               397
          AHMED & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Act, 1894 of the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under Section          A
24(2) of the Act, 2013.
       3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the High
Court ought to have first decided the ownership dispute and thereafter
ought to have considered the locus of the original writ petitioner. Be that
it may, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal              B
Corporation and Anr. (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 decision 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           C
Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:-
            “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.                   D
      Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been
      followed, are also overruled. The decision 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
                                                                              E
      also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
      [(2018) 3 SCC 412], 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.                                                               F

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


A     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”.
B     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
C     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
D     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
E
      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
F     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
G     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)
H     of the 2013 Act.
   GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. SHAKEEL                              399
          AHMED & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

             366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to       A
      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         B
      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
                                                                             C
      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               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.”                                            F
      4. In view of the above and applying the law laid down by this
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and
when it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and original
respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on
04.03.1983, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court         G
declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act,
1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed
and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
                                                                             H
400              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
             Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

      Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                           Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

B




C




D




E




F




G




H