LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR.versusMANISH SETHI AND ORS.

392                        [2023]
                SUPREME COURT     2 S.C.R. 392
                               REPORTS                     [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A                LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR.
                                        v.
                          MANISH SETHI AND ORS.
                          (Civil Appeal No. 945 of 2023)
B                             FEBRUARY 17, 2023
      [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     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – High Court relying on the decision of
      Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
      Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported as declared that the acquisition
      proceeding initiated under the 1894 Act w.r.t the land in question is
      deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in
      Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the
D     Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
      and Ors. reported as – Applying the law laid down therein and
      considering the stand taken by the appellant before the High Court
      that the possession of the disputed land in question was taken, there
      shall not be any deemed lapse u/s. 24(2) – Impugned judgment set
E     aside.
              Indore Development Authority v. 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 3
G
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.945 of
      2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 25.05.2015 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.6060 of 2014.
H
                                       392
    LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. v. MANISH                                393
                  SETHI AND ORS.

     Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul                   A
Pandey, Rajiv Ranjan, Ms. Rachita Kadyan, Advs. for the Appellants.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment        B
and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition
(C) No. 6060 of 2014 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 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”),           C
the Land and Building Department and the Land Acquisition Collector
have preferred the present appeal.
      2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it is apparent that the High Court has allowed the said writ petition
and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question     D
is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 relying
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.
reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that the compensation
has not been tendered and/or paid to the landowners. However, it is            E
required to be noted that before the High Court, it was the specific case
on behalf of the appellant that the possession of the land in question was
taken on 28.03.2007.
      3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been overruled by the Constitution            F
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. 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
                                                                               G
      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
      followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar
                                                                               H
394      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     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
      Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as
B
      “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
      questions as under:
C
             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.

D            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.

E            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
F     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
G     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
H
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. v. MANISH                              395
        SETHI AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

 provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section        A
 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
                                                                         B
 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
 to non-payment or non- deposit of compensation in court. The            C
 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.                                                        D
        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                 E
 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           F
 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        G
 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 of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding
                                                                         H
396              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A            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 compensation in the treasury instead of court
             to invalidate acquisition.”
B
             4. In view of the above and considering the stand taken by the
      appellant before the High Court that the possession of the disputed land
      in question was taken on 28.03.2007 and applying the law laid down by
      this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the
      impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable
C     and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly the
      impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and
      set aside. There shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of
      the Act, 2013 as held by the High Court.
             Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
D
             Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.


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




F




G




H