GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.versusDHANNU & ANR

                          [2023] 2 S.C.R. 397                           397


                   GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.                            A
                                 v.
                        DHANNU & ANR.
                    (Civil Appeal No.942 of 2023)
                      FEBRUARY 17, 2023                                 B
             [M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMAR AND
                     SANJAY KAROL JJ.]
       Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
                                                                        C
High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors. reported as allowed the writ petition filed by the original writ
petitioner-respondent no.1 herein and declared that the acquisition
proceeding w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/
s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation       D
case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as – Applying
the law laid down therein and as admittedly the land belongs to
Gram Sabha and the original writ petitioner was not the recorded
owner and/or even the owner, the High Court ought not to have
                                                                        E
entertained the writ petition– Impugned judgment set aside.
        Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal 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]           F
        1 SCR 783 – referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783               referred to             Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1                 followed                Para 2.1         G
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.942 of
2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3158 of 2015.
                                                                        H
                                397
398             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A          Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
      Pandey, Rajiv Ranjan, Advs. for the Appellants.
            C. N. Sreekumar, Sr. Adv., Arjun Verma, Ms. Anupama Kumar,
      Ishaan Sharma, Nitin Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
            M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 16.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
      Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3158 of 2015 by which the High Court has
C     allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein –
      original writ petitioner (now represented through his heirs) and has
      declared that the acquisition with respect 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 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Government of
D     NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
             2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court it appears that while allowing the writ petition the High Court has
      relied upon and/or followed the earlier decision of this Court in the case
      of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
E     Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 on the ground that
      the possession of the subject land could not be taken. It is required to be
      noted that before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of
      the appellant that the land belongs to Gram Sabha and therefore the
      original writ petitioner had no locus to pray for declaration that the
F     acquisition with respect to subject land is deemed to have lapsed by
      virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, without deciding the
      question of ownership and keeping the same open, the High Court has
      entertained the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 –
      original writ petitioner. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even
      before the High Court the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
G     original writ petitioner did not dispute that the land belongs to Gram
      Sabha. In that view of the matter when the land belongs to Gram Sabha
      which was even admitted on behalf of the original writ petitioner, the
      High Court ought not to have entertained the said writ petition at the
      instance of the original writ petitioner who was not even the recorded
      owner. Even the question with respect to the compensation to be paid
H
               GOVT. OF NCT DELHI v. DHANNU                                 399
                      [M. R. SHAH, J.]

would arise only in favour of recorded owner and/or in favour of a person   A
who had a title.
       2.1 Even otherwise it is required to be noted that the decision of
this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
(supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court has been
specifically over-ruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the      B
case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and
others reported in (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
      Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,        C
      (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
      Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State
      of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying down           D
      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
      Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as
      “and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision      E
      too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present
      judgment.
            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    F
      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
      window period of five years excluding the period covered by an        G
      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”.      H
400      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 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
      has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no
B
      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
C     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
D     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
E     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
F     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.
G            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
H
                  GOVT. OF NCT DELHI v. DHANNU                                    401
                         [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in             A
       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             B
       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.                                                 C

              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        D
       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.”
       3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore          E
Development Authority (supra) and as observed hereinabove that
the land belongs to Gram Sabha which was admitted on behalf of the
original writ petitioner and the original writ petitioner was not the recorded
owner and/or even the owner, the High Court ought not to have
entertained the writ petition. The impugned judgment and order passed             F
by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
       Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Divya Pandey                                                    Appeal allowed.   G
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)




                                                                                  H