AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRAversusANEK SINGH AND OTHERS

                           [2022] 3 S.C.R. 255                             255


          AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRA                                 A
                                   v.
                   ANEK SINGH AND OTHERS
                   (Civil Appeal No. 2914 of 2022)
                            MAY 20, 2022                                   B
         [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
      Land Acquisition – Lapse of proceedings – High Court while
relying upon the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case, had
held that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in
                                                                           C
question had lapsed under sub-section (2) of s.24 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as the amount of
compensation was not actually paid to the land owners – On appeal,
held: Since the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case was
subsequently overruled by a Constitution Bench in Indore                   D
Development Authority v. Manoharlal case , the order passed by the
High Court is unsustainable and is therefore quashed and set aside
– Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
      Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others                E
      (2020) 8 SCC 129: [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
      Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v.
      Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others (2014) 3
      SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783 – referred to.
                        Case Law Reference                                 F

[2014] 1 SCR 783                 Para 3                   referred to
[2020] 3 SCR 1                   Para 3.1                 followed
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2914
of 2022.                                                                   G
       From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.13927 of 2016
      V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., R. K. Singh, M. M. Pandey, Mrs. Neeraj
Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Praveen Pathak, Ajay Chaudhary, Ms. Ritu
                                                                           H
                                  255
256             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A     Reniwal, Sajith P., Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Sameer Kulshreshtha, Rakesh
      Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Ms. Aarti U. Mishra, Rishabh Kumar Pandey,
      Mridul Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
            S. R. Singh, Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Advs., Yash Pal Dhingra, Prateek
      Yadav, Ms. Sunita Pandit, K. K. Yadav, Prithvi Yadav, Gaurav Lomes,
B     Mohd. Muztaba, Ankur Yadav, Ms. Manju Jetley, Rudreshwar Singh,
      Kaushik Poddar, Ms. Isha Singh, Nishit Agrawal, Harsh Mishra, Kumar
      Deepraj, Vikas Tiwari, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Bhakti Vardhan Singh,
      Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra,
      Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms. Anupama Ngangom,
      Mohan Dadwal, Advs. for the Respondents.
C
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil
D     Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.13927 of 2016 by which the High Court
      has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein
      original writ petitioners and has held that the acquisition proceedings
      with respect to the land in question shall be deemed to have lapsed
      under Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation
E     and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
      Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the Agra
      Development Authority, Agra has preferred the present appeal.
             2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. We
      have perused and considered the impugned judgment and order passed
F     by the High Court.
             3. Before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of the
      Agra Development Authority – appellant herein that as such the possession
      of the land in question was already taken over and even the name of the
      Authority was mutated in the revenue records. It was also the specific
      case on behalf of the Authority that possession of the land in question
G
      was with them but the original writ petitioners illegally occupied it again.
      It was also the case on behalf of the Authority that the development
      works have already been carried out on the land in question and the
      entire compensation had already been deposited with the Special Land
      Acquisition Officer. It was also the case on behalf of the Authority that
H     the original writ petitioners deliberately did not take the compensation
 AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRA v. ANEK SINGH                                257
           AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

for the remaining plot measuring 6 Biswa and 15 Biswansi and therefore,        A
on account of the fault of the writ petitioners, the acquisition proceedings
cannot lapse. However, by the impugned judgment and order the High
Court has held and declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect
to the land in question shall be deemed to have lapsed under sub-section
(2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the amount of
                                                                               B
compensation was not actually paid to the land owners. While holding so
the High Court has relied upon and considered the decision of this Court
in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and another versus
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others reported in (2014) 3 SCC
183.
      3.1 Thus, while passing the impugned judgment and order the              C
High Court has solely relied upon the decision of this Court in the case
of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and other decisions in which
the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was
followed. (Para 12 of the impugned judgment and order)
      However, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal        D
Corporation (supra) has been subsequently over-ruled by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority versus Manoharlal and others, 2020) 8 SCC 129. In
paragraph 366 it is observed and held as under:
            “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the           E
      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.               F
             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.                                      G
            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          H
258      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A     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.
B            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
C     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
D     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.
             366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation
E     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
      or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim
F     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).

G            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
H     under Section 24(2).
 AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AGRA v. ANEK SINGH                               259
           AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

              366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to      A
       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
       concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the
                                                                              B
       legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or
       mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court
       to invalidate acquisition.
              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           C
       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
       4. In view of the above Constitution Bench decision of this Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and the earlier
decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
(supra) has been specifically overruled by this Court, which has been
relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and         E
order, the same passed by the High Court is unsustainable and it deserves
to be quashed and set aside.
      4.1 In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) and considering the facts and
circumstances narrated hereinabove, it cannot be said that the acquisition
proceedings with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed     F
under the provisions of the Act, 2013.
      5. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated
above present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the
writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner before the High       G
Court stands dismissed.
       In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                        Appeal allowed.   H