LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR.versusB. S. DHILLION & ORS.

                        [2023] 2 S.C.R. 229                              229


        LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR.                              A
                                  v.
                     B. S. DHILLION & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 1597 of 2023)
                         MARCH 13, 2023                                  B
         [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
       Right to far compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –
Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – On facts, award
                                                                         C
passed with respect to the subject land in the year 1992 – Possession
of the land was taken in the year 2006 and was handed over to the
DDA on the spot by preparing the possession proceedings – Writ
petition by the private respondent-writ petitioner seeking declaration
that acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed
to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court relying upon the          D
Pune Municipal Corporation’s case held the acquisition is deemed to
have lapsed – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr.’s case has been overruled by this
Court in the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development
Authority’s case – Applying the law laid by this Court in Indore
                                                                         E
Development Authority’s case, there shall not be any deemed lapse
u/s. 24(2) – Order passed by the High Court is quashed and set
aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
      Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
                                                                         F
      Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
      Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
      1 SCR 783 – referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1                         followed       Para 3             G

[2014] 1 SCR 783                       referred to    Para 2, 2.1
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1597
of 2023.
                                                                         H
                                 229
230            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A           From the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2016 of the High Court
      of Delhi in New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2916 of 2015.
           Atul Kumar, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Amitabh Ranjan, Rahul
      Pandey, Mrs. Archana Kumari, Mrs. Sweety Singh, Mrs. Rachita
      Kadyan, Advs. for the Appellants.
B            Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G., N.S. Vasisht, Ms. Jyoti Kataria,
      Varun Kapur, Ms. Smita Maan, Ashok Mathur, Sumit Bansal, Manish
      Paliwal, Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Ranjit Singh Daler, D.V. Khatri, Mansoor
      Ali, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ishaan Sharma,
      Manish Vasisht, Ashutosh Kaushik, Nitin Mishra, Mukesh Kumar Verma,
C     Vikas Gupta, Ms. Vuzmal Nehru, Ankit Gupta, Satya Parkash Gautam,
      Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, Jaideep Malik, Nitesh Dhankar, Sujeet Kumar,
      Mahesh Chaurasia, Sunil Kumar Tomar, Ms. Soni, Ms. Reena Patel,
      Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Varun Agarwal, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Mrs.
      Rukhmini Bobde, Prashant Rawat, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Malvika
      Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Tanwangi Shukla, Ravi Bharuka, Ankit
D     Agarwal, Ms. Shalini Chandra, Praveen Swarup, K.P. Singh, Chandra
      Pratap Singh, Hari Sahteshwar, Devesh Maurya, Ms. Pratishtha
      Majumdar, Nishit Agrawal, Ishan Sharma, Ms. Kanishka Mittal,
      Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Dharam Raj Ohlan, Md. Zeeshan
      Anjum, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Surjeet Singh, Akash, Vishwa Pal Singh,
E     Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
F     and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition
      (C) No. 2916 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
      petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in
      question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right
      to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
      Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to
G     as “Act, 2013”), the Land Acquisition Collector and Anr. have preferred
      the present appeal.
             2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court, it appears that the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition
      Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with respect to the
H     land in question was made as far as back on 19.06.1992. According to
         LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR.                                   231
             v. B. S. DHILLION [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the appellants and so stated in the counter before the High Court, it was      A
the specific case on behalf of the appellants that the possession of the
land in question was taken on 21.04.2006 and was handed over to the
DDA on the spot by preparing the possession proceedings. However,
despite the above and relying upon the earlier decision of this Court in
the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
                                                                               B
Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, 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 24(2) of
the Act, 2013.
       2.1 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been heavily relied upon by            C
the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has been
subsequently overruled by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision
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:-                           D
            “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.
      Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been                 E
      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
      also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
      [(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso to            F
      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.
            366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the            G
      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
      to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.                   H
232      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A            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 has not been repealed.
B            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 years or more prior to commencement of the
      said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
C     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.
             366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
D     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
      1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
E
      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
      acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to
F     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
      as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to
G     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
      or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim
      that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2)
H     of the 2013 Act.
             LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR.                                  233
                 v. B. S. DHILLION [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
        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
        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.
        It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen       E
        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          F
Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand,
there shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013. Under the circumstances, 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.
                                                                                  G
        Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
        Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Nidhi Jain                                                      Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)
                                                                                  H