NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.versusSUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.

788                      [2023]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    2 S.C.R. 788              [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A          NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.
                                       v.
                  SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 1987 of 2023)
B                               APRIL 10, 2023
               [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
             Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
      Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
      Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by
C
      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) – Department’s case that the possession of
      the subject land was taken over and used by the Department prior
      to 2013 and the compensation was not paid – High Court held the
D     acquisition is deemed to have lapsed, however the original writ
      petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the Act – On
      appeal, held : Possession of the subject land was taken over and
      was put to use prior to 2013 Act came into force, there would be no
      deemed lapse of acquisition and the original writ petitioner not
      entitled to compensation under the Act – Impugned Judgment passed
E
      by the High Court not sustainable and set aside – Land Acquisition
      Act, 1897.
            Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
            (2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed.
F           Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
            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
G
      (2020) 8 SCC 129                  followed             Para 2.1
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1987
      of 2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 15.01.2018 of the High Court
H     of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 12143 of 2015.
                                      788
    NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. v.                              789
          SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.

      Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.                         A
      Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj,
Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Bhuvan Kapoor, Saransh Kumar, Digvijay
Dam, Ms. Shivika Mehra, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, 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 15.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No.12143 of 2015 by which the High Court has         C
allowed the said writ petitionand has declared that the acquisition with
respect to the subject land 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”), however the High Court has observed and held that the
original writ petitioner would be entitled to compensation under the Act,      D
2013, the Land and Building Department of the NCT of Delhi and others
have preferred the present appeal.
       2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that before the High Court it was the specific case on
behalf of the Department that the possession of the subject land has           E
been taken. However, thereafter 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 paid, the High Court has
allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings    F
with respect to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, as the land in question was already put
to use by the beneficiary Department, the High Court has directed that
the original writ petitioner shall be entitled to the compensation under the
New Act.
                                                                               G
       2.1 Thus, even the High Court has accepted that the possession
of the land in question was already taken over and even the land was put
to use by the Department. Even the original writ petitioner also admitted
the same and therefore prayed that he be paid the compensation under
the Act, 2013. Once the possession of the subject land was taken over
and in fact was put to use prior to 2013 Act came into force, as per the       H
790            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development
      Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129, there shall
      not be any deemed lapse of acquisition. In paragraph366 it is observed
      and held as under:-
               “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
B           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.
C              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.
D               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
E           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.

F               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 (landowners) as on
            the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the
G           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 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
H
NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. v.                           791
SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

 the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under    A
 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       B
 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)
 of the 2013 Act.                                                       C

    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           D
 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
 under Section 24(2).
                                                                        E
     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
 proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned
 as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed     F
 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 pending on
 the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not     G
 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.”
                                                                        H
792              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A            3. In view of the above and once there shall be no deemed lapse
      of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the original writ
      petitioner shall not be entitled to the compensation as per the Act, 2013.
      Under the circumstances the impugned judgment and order passed by
      the High Court is unsustainable. as well as in the case of int eh case of
      cacy remedy is available to any aggrieved person.rs. present appeals
B
      are against the
             4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
      the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The original writ petition
      filed by the respondent no.1 herein filed before the High Court stands
C     dismissed accordingly.
            Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and
      circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
             Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
D
      Nidhi Jain                                                     Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)




E




F




G




H