BHARGAVA & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                         [2015] 2 S.C.R. 794



    BHARGAVA & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. & ORS.                          A

                               v.
                   UNION OF INDIAAND ORS.
              '.
               (Civil Appeal No. 5099 of 2008)                      B

                       MARCH 10, 2015

      [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
                                                                    c
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.
24(2) - Deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings under -
When can be declared- Held: Factum of award uls. 11 of
the 1894 Act must be established and the said award must            o
have been passed h"ve years before the commencement of
the Act - Once the aforesaid is established, possession is
found to not have been taken, or compensation not paid, then
the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed - In the
instant case, land owners submission that either possession         E
still with them or compensation not tendered by the State -
Land owners proposing to "initiate proceedings uls. 24 -
Appeal disposed of, without entering into merits, by granting
liberty to the land owners to pray for the revival of the appeals
in the event the orders uls. 24 adverse to their interest- Thus,    F
land owners permitted to initiate appropriate proceedings in
the proper forum/court, seeking the benefit of s. 24 - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 11.

  Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.                 G
  2015(1) SCALE 677; Arvind Bansalv. State of Haryana
  2015 (3) SCALE 2.0(.\· Kamai/ Kaur v. State of Punjab
  (2015) 1JT377 - relied on.

                              794                                   H
795        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A      Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal
        Solanki 2014 (1) SCR 783:(2014) 3 SCC 183, Union
        of India vs. Shiv Raj (2014) 6 SCC 564; Bimla Devi vs.
        State of Haryana (2014) 6 SCC 583; Rajiv Chowdhrie
        HUF v. Union of India 2015 AIR 614; Rajjv Chowdhrie
 B      HUF v. Union of India (Civil Appeal No.8786 of 2013,
        decided on 06.02.2015 - referred to.

                        Case Law Reference

 c      2014 (1) SCR 783         Referred to          para 2

        (2014) 6 sec 564         Referred to          para 2

        (2014) 6 sec 583         Referred to          para 2

 D      2015(1) SCALE 677        Relied on            para 2

        2015 (3) SCAl,.E 200     Relied on            para 2

        (2015) 1 JT 377          Relied on            para 2
 E      2015AIR 614              Referred to.         para 2

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5099
      of2008

 F. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2005 of the High
    Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 5609 of
    2002

                                WITH

 G C.A. No. 5126 of2008

   Salil Sagar, Dushyant Parashar, Surya Kant, Suresh C. Gupta,
   Abhinav Singh, Samarth Sagar, Birendra Kumar Mishra for
 H the Appellants.
 BHARGAVA & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF 796
               INDIA AND ORS.

Rachana Srivastava, Utkarsh Sharma for the Respondents.            A

       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1 These Appeals were originally
filed seeking relief on the basis of provisions in the Land
                                                            B
Acquisition Act, 1894: Subsequently, upon the enactment of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the
Appeal grounds herein metamorphosed into proceedings
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, seeking lapse of the c
acquisition proceedings thereunder.

 2. Similar positioned Appeals i.e. Civil Appeal No. 5054 of
 2008 and other connected Appeals, i.e. Civil Appeal Nos. 5100,
 5283, 5105-5124, 5101-5104, 5053, 5050, 5052 of 2008, D
 3279, 3280 of 2012 5127-5129, 5125, 5051 of2008 and 3278
 of2012, have been disposed of with these observations and
 directions, which seem to us to remain the commendable
 approach-
                                                                    E
         "All of these Appeals were admitted before the
 commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and
 Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
                                                                        "
                                                                        '·


 Resettlement Act, 2013. After commencement thereof, the
Appellants changed the tack of their challenge - originally F
 framed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - and impugned
the acquisition proceedings in toto, by evoking the deemed
 lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
Any determination under this provision must proceed
sequentially. First, the factum o.f an Award under Section 11 of G
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
                                                                    H
797          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2015) 2 S.C.R.


 A been established, if possession is found to not have been
   taken, or compensation not paid, then the proceedings shall
   be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the appropriate
   Government, if it so chooses, may reinitiate acquisition
   proceedings in respect of the same land, but under the 2013
 B Act's regime.

           Each and every deeming operation under Section 24(2)
   requires unambiguously and unvaryingly that a factual
   conclusion be drawn about the passing of the Award under
 C Section 11, of the 1894Act, 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
 D attracting the lapse.

              From the record, these Appeals do not unambiguously
      answer these indispensable queries, which inarguably must
      precede any declaration of lapse of acquisition under Section
      24(2). Each of these Appeals must factually satisfy this Court
 E    on the ingredients of Section 24(2), before this Court may pass
      a declaration in retognition of the statutory lapse of acquisition.

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

 G         It has been contended in other Appeals before this Court
   that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
   Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Ordinance, 2014,
   issued on 31st December, 2014, clarifies that if possession
 H of the acquired land has not been taken owing to interim Orders
 BHARGAVA & ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF 798
      INDIA AND ORS. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]

passed in this regard the acquisition may be protected and A
insulated from the purpose and intendment of Section 24 of
the 2013Act. This Court has now clarified in Radiance Fincap
(P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4283 of2011
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         C
   abovesaid sub-Section without giving retrospective
   effect to the same."

       The legal position has been subsequently reiterated by
this Court in Arvind Bansal v. State of Haryana (Civil Appeal D
Nos.417-418 of 2015 decided on 13.01.2015) and Karnail
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 E
not been paid or (c) that possession of the land has not been
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 thatthe physical possession F
of the land hap not been taken by the Respondents, nor
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. G
Union of India in Civil Appeal No.8785 of 2013 decided on
10.12.2014 by a different Bench of this Court.      '

        In all these Appeals, the submission of the land owners
is that either possession is still with them, or compensation     H
799           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A    has not been tendered by the State. Consequently, the land
      owners propose to initiate proceedings founded on Section
      24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
      Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ResettlementAct, 2013
      (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013Act").
 B
               Having heard all the learned counsel, we are persuaded
      to dispose of these proceedings, without entering on the
      merits, by granting liberty to the land owners before us to pray
      for the revival of the Appeals in the event that Orders under
 C    Section 24 ofthe'2013Act are adverse to their interest. We,
      therefore, permit the land owners to initiate appropriate
      proceedings in the proper forum/court, seeking the benefit of
      Section 24 of the 2013Act, within eight weeks from today. We
      clarify that, in the event that any land owners have already
 0
      approached the High Court concerned, their plea under
      Section 24 of the 2013 Act shall be decided on merits.

           It is in these circumstances that all these Appeals are
   disposed of with liberty to the parties to revive these Appeals
 E in the event that the Orders under Section 24 of the 2013Act
   are seen as adverse to their interest. Interim protection, if
   already granted, shall continue for a period of 90 days from
   today.
 F          It is furtherclarified that the parties desirous of reviving
      the Appeal must approach this Court within 90 days of the
      passing of the High Court's orders."

      3. These two Appeals are also disposed of in the above terms.
 G
      Nidhi Jain                                     Appeals disposed of.




 H