NCT OF DELHI AND ORSversusJAGJIT SINGH AND ORS.

                  [2015) 2 S.C.R. 692



           GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS                      A

                            v.
                JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS.

            (Civil Appeal No. 2592 of2015 etc.)              B

                  FEBRUARY 27, 2015

   [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
                                                             c
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -
Lapsing of acquisition - When can be declared- Held: When
it is established that award u/s. 11 of Land Acquisition Act,
1894 was passed at least five years before commencement D
of 2013 Act, possession had not been taken or compensation
not paid, the land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed
to have lapsed- Jn the facts of the present case, respondents
are entitled to protection uls. 24(2) of 2013 Act - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 11.                                E

  Radiance Fincap (P) ~td. v. Union of India & Ors.
  2015(1) SCALE 677; Arvind Bansal v. State of Haryana
  2015 (3) SCALE 200; Kamai/ Kaur v. State of Punjab
  (2015) 1JT377; RajivChowdhrieHUFv. Union of/ndia           F
  2015 AIR 614- relied on.
                                    •
  Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal
  Solanki2014 (1) SCR 783 = (2014) 3 SCC 183, Union
  of India vs. Shiv Raj (2014) 6 sec 564 and Bimla Devi     G
  VS. State of Haryana (2014) 6 sec 583- referred to.

                  Case Law Reference

  2014 (1) SCR 78.3        referred to            para3
                                                             H
                            692
693         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 2 S.C.R.

            "'
 A      (2014) 6 sec 564        referred to        para 3

        (2014) 6 sec 583        referred to        para 3

        2015(1) SCALE 677       relied on          para 4
 B      2015 (3) SCALE 200      relied on          para 4

        (2015) 1 JT 377         relied on          para 4

        2015AIR 614             relied on          para 4
 c

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2592
      of2015

 D From the Judgment and Order dated 27.05.2014 of the High
   Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2806 of
   2004

                               WITH
 E
      Civil Appeal Nos: 2586, 2587, 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591
      and 2593 of 2015

   Amrendra Sharan, Rachana Srivastava, Utkarsh Sharma,
 F Viresh B. Saharya, V. B. Saharya (For Saharya & Co.) for
   the Appellants.

      Ravinder Sethi, Rajeev Ghawana, Gautam Narayan, E. C.
      Agrawala for the Respondents.

G           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Any determination under
      Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
      Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
H
        GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. JAGJIT SINGH                      694
                 [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

   ResettlementAct, 2013, must proceed sequentially. First, the A
   factum of an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition
···Act, 1894, must be clearly established. The said Award must
   predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., 01.01.2014., by
   at least five years (or more), ie., the Award must have been
   passed on or before 01.01.2009. This having been B
   established, if possession is found to not have been taken,
   or compensation n9t paid, then the proceedings shall be
   deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the appropriate
   Government, if it so. chooses, may reinitiate acquisition C
   proceedings in respect of the same land, but under the 2013
   Act's regime.

 2. Each and .every deeming operation under Section 24(2)
 requires unambiguously and unvaryingly that a factual conclusion D
 be drawn about the passing of the Award under Section 11, of
 the 1894 Act, on or before 01.01.2009; further, the absence of
 compensation having been paid or the absence of possession
 having been taken by the acquirer, either of these, must be a
 proven point of fact, as a threshold requirement attracting the lapse. E

 3. This Court has in a number of decisions including Pune
 Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014)
 3 SCC 183, Union of India vs. Shiv Raj (2014) 6 SCC 564 and
 Simla Devi VS. State of Haryana (2014) 6 sec 583, clarified           F
 the manner in which the new provision is to be interpreted viz.'
 that the acquisition lapses.

 4. It. has been contended in other Appeals before this Court that
 the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land G
 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ~ettlement Ordinance, 2014,
 issued on 31st December, 2014, clarifies that if possession of
 the acquired land has not been taken owing to interim Orders
 passed in this regard the acquisition may be protected and
 insulated from the purpose and intendment of Section 24 of the H
695 .
           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A   2013Act. This Court has now clarified in Radiance Fincap (P)
     Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4283 of 2011
     decided on 12.01.2015] that the Ordinance shall have
     prospective operation only. This Court therein held as under:

 B      "The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the
        acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the
        statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be
        taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the
        abovesaid sub-Section without giving retrospective
 c      effect to the same."

   The legal position has been subsequently reiterated by this
   Court in Arvind Bansal v. State of Haryana (Civil Appeal
   Nos.417-418 of 2015 decided on 13.01.2015) and Karnail
 D Kaur v. State of Punjab [Civil Appeal No. 7424 of 2013 decided
   on 22.01.2015]. We are in respectful agreement with all these
   decisions. In the event that there is no ambiguity that (a) the
   Award is over five years old and (b) that compensation has
   not been paid or (c) that possession of the land has not been
 E taken, the acquisition is liable to be quashed. In Rajiv
   Chowdhrie HUF v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No.8786 of 2013,
   decided on 06.02.2015], noting that the physical possession
   of the land had nc.t,. been taken by the Respondents, nor
 F compensation paid by the Respondents to the Appellant in
   respect whereof the Award was passed on 6.08.2007, the
   acquisition proceedings had been declared as having lapsed.
   The same position was arrived at in Rajiv Chowdhrie HUF v.
   Union of India in Civil Appeal No.8785 of 2013 decided on
 G 10.12.2014 by a different Bench of this Court.

   5 . These Appeals assail one Judgment and an Order [passed
   in light of that Judgment] of a Division Bench of the Delhi High
   Court, which had allowed the Writ Petitions before it, and
 H declared that the acquisitions had lapsed for the reason that
      GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI v. JAGJIT SINGH                   696
                   [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

the possession had not been taken and compensation, too,          A
not paid. This is sufficient ground for granting the protection
envisaged by Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

6. The Appeals are dismissed in the above terms.
                                                                  B
Kalpana K. Tripathy                                     Appeals
dismissed.




                                                                  c


                                                                  D




                                                                  E




                                                                  F




                                                                  G




                                                                  H