GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHIversusMOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS

802                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   17 S.C.R. 802                [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A                          GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
                                         v.
                          MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 9229 of 2022 )
B                             DECEMBER 15, 2022
               [M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
             Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
      Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
      Land acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 –
C
      Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court
      challenging the acquisition proceedings and also for a declaration
      that the acquisition with respect to the land is deemed to have been
      lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – According to the Land
      Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit before
D     the High Court, the possession of the disputed land in question
      along with the other lands were taken over and handed over to
      DDA on 04.03.1983 – High Court, on the ground, that the
      compensation was not tendered to the land owner, allowed writ
      petition and declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in
      question is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 –
E
      Hence instant appeal – Held: As per the recent decision of the
      Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development
      Authority v. Manoharlal and others for the purpose of lapse under
      s.24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking over
      possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are required
F     to be satisfied and that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there
      shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of
      the Act, 2013 – According to the possession certificate and the
      specific case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition
      Collector that the possession of the land in question was taken over
      on 04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, the impugned judgment
G
      and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same
      deserves to be quashed.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
           HELD: 1. As per the recent decision of the Constitution
H     Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
                                        802
   GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS.                       803


v. Manoharlal and others for the purpose of lapse under Section        A
24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions of not taking over
possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are
required to be satisfied. As per the decision in the case of Indore
Development Authority if one of the conditions is not satisfied,
there shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under
                                                                       B
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the case of Indore Development
Authority, the Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically
overuled the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. which has been relied upon by the High
Court while passing the impugned judgment and order. [Para
3.1][805-C-E]                                                          C
      2. According to the possession certificate and the specific
case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector
that the possession of the land in question was taken over on
04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the            D
same deserves to be quashed and set aside. [Para 4][807-H; 808-
A]
      Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
      Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand                E
      Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
      1 SCR 783 – referred to.
                      Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783               referred to               Para 2        F
[2020] 3 SCR 1                 followed                  Para 3.1
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9229
of 2022
      From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 27 of 2015.             G

      Chandra Prakash, C. P. Rajwar, Vivek Singh, Pushkar Anand,
Advs. for the Appellant.
      Nishit Agrawal, Ishaan Sharma, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Advs. for
the Respondents.                                                       H
804            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
      Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015 by which the High Court has
B     allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 – 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 the
      Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
      Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
C     ‘the Act 2013’), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the
      present appeal.
              2. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
      1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1894) with respect to the land
      in question was issued as far as back on 10.11.1960 followed by the
D     declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 dated 06.01.1969. The award
      was declared on 31.01.1983. According to the Department and the Land
      Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit on behalf of
      the original respondent nos. 1 & 2 before the High Court the possession
      of the disputed land in question along with the other lands were taken
      over and handed over to DDA on 04.03.1983. That in the year 2015 the
E     respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging
      the acquisition proceedings including the Notification under Section 4 of
      the Act, 1894 and also for a declaration that the acquisition with respect
      to the land in question is deemed to have been lapsed by virtue of Section
      24(2) of the Act, 2013.
F            2.1 Though it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and
      the Land Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit
      before the High Court that the possession of the land was taken on
      04.03.1983 and the same was handed over to DDA, without going into
      the controversy of the physical possession, by the impugned judgment
G     and order and 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 and on the ground that the
      compensation has not been tendered to the land owner, 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 under Section
H     24(2) of the Act, 2013. Hence, the present appeal.
   GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS.                               805
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       3. As observed hereinabove, it was the specific case on behalf of       A
the appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector before the High Court
that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 04.03.1983
and the same was handed over to the DDA. It is required to be noted
that the original acquisition is of the year 1960 and the writ petition was
preferred challenging the acquisition in the Notification under Sections 4
                                                                               B
& 6 after a period of almost 55 years. By the impugned judgment and
order the High Court has allowed the writ petition relying upon the decision
of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra)
observing that the compensation has not been tendered.
       3.1 However, as per the recent decision of the Constitution Bench
of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority versus               C
Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 for the purpose
of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions of not
taking over possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are
required to be satisfied. As per the decision in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) if one of the conditions is not satisfied,       D
there shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra) the Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically over-ruled
the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
and Anr. (supra) which has been relied upon by the High Court while
passing the impugned judgment and order.In paragraphs 365 and 366,             E
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,
      (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in
      which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.                    F
      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
                                                                               G
      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.                                                                H
806      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A        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
B     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 provided
      under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it
C     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 of authorities for five
D     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.
E
         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
F     (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 Section 34 of the said Act
G     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.
H
   GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS.                             807
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

          366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation         A
      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
                                                                             B
      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 be
      treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
                                                                             C
         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
      State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the
      2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse          D
      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 compensation for
      five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a           E
      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.
          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      F
      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 concluded
      proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode
      of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of       G
      compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
      acquisition.”
      4. In view of the above and according to the possession certificate
and the specific case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition
Collector that the possession of the land in question was taken over on
                                                                             H
808              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, theimpugned judgment and order
      passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be
      quashed and set aside.
             Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court allowing the Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015 and declaring the
B     acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question is deemed to
      have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed and
      set aside.
             Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
             Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
C

      Devika Gujral                                                  Appeal allowed.




D




E




F




G




H