AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.versusRAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS

250                      [2022]
              SUPREME COURT     3 S.C.R. 250
                             REPORTS                     [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A         AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                         AND ANR.
                                      v.
                        RAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS
B                       (Civil Appeal No.2916 of 2022)
                                MAY 20, 2022
              [M. R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
            Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and
C     Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
      Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court allowed writ petition preferred by
      respondents–original writ petitioners and held that acquisition
      proceedings in respect of the three plots in question pertaining to
      the original writ petitioners stand lapsed under subsection (2) of
D     s.24 of the 2013 Act – It was so held by the High Court, solely on
      the ground that, though deposit of compensation was made in the
      Treasury, but the same was not deposited in the Court and
      consequently payment of compensation was not made to the land
      owners – Held: Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
E     case of Indore Development Authority and in the present case as the
      amount of compensation was deposited with the Treasury and even
      the possession was already taken over on 07.09.2005, the impugned
      judgment passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

F           Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and
            others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – relied
            on.
            Delhi Development Authority versus Sukhbir Singh and
            others, (2016) 16 SCC 258 : [2016] 5 SCR 227 –
G           referred to.
                            Case Law Reference
      [2016] 5 SCR 227               referred to            Para 3
      [2020] 3 SCR 1                 relied on              Para 3
H
                                     250
    AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                     251
        AND ANR. v. RAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2916                      A
of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Misc. Bench
No.3962 of 2005.
      V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv., R. K. Singh, M. M. Pandey, Mrs. Neeraj           B
Singh, Kumar Gaurav, Praveen Pathak, Ajay Chaudhary, Ms. Ritu
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        C
Yadav, Ms. Sunita Pandit, K. K. Yadav, Prithvi Yadav, Gaurav Lomes,
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,                          D
Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms. Anupama Ngangom,
Mohan Dadwal, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.
                                                                               E
      1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Miscellaneous Bench No.3962
of 2005 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 in respect of the three plots in         F
question pertaining to the original writ petitioners stand lapsed under
sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’) , the Ayodhya Faizabad
Development Authority and another has preferred the present appeal.
                                                                               G
      2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length. We have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court.
       3. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has held
that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the three plots in question   H
252            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A     shall stand lapsed under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013
      solely on the ground that, though the deposit of the compensation was
      made in the Treasury, but the same was not deposited in the Court and
      consequently the payment of compensation of the amount was not made
      to the land owners. The High Court has relied upon the decision of this
      Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority versus Sukhbir
B
      Singh and others, (2016) 16 SCC 258. However, in view of the
      subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development
      Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, the
      impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
      In paragraph 366 of the aforesaid judgment this Court has observed and
C     held as under:
                  “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
            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
D           of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation
            has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
                   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
E           provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894
            Act as if it has not been repealed.
                   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
F           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
            compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession
            has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no
G           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
            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
H
  AYODHYA FAIZABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                    253
AND ANR. V. RAM NEWAJ AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

    majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on      A
    the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the
    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
                                                                            B
    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
    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       C
    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            D
    or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim
    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).      E
           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         F
    2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse
    under Section 24(2).
           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     G
    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.                                              H
254             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A                   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
B
             interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the
             computation of five years.”
             3.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
      Development Authority (supra) and in the present case as the amount
      of compensation was deposited with the Treasury and even the possession
C     was already taken over on 07.09.2005, the impugned judgment and order
      passed by the High Court holding that the land acquisition proceedings
      with respect to the lands in question are deemed to have lapsed deserves
      to be quashed and set aside.
            4. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated
D     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
      Court stands dismissed.
             In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
E     as to costs.

      Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                       Appeal allowed.



F




G




H