DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBATTI & ORS

                        [2023] 3 S.C.R. 631                              631


             DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                 A
                                  v.
                           BATTI & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2023)
                         MARCH 22, 2023                                  B
        [ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
       Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –
Respondent was the daughter-in-law of the deceased – The deceased
                                                                         C
was alleged owner of the land with respect to which the land
acquisition proceeding took place and the award was announced
by the land acquisition collector – Respondent approached the High
Court contending that the possession of the land have not be taken
and the compensation not being paid hence the acquisition has
lapsed – The High Court found that as a matter of fact, the              D
possession was taken by the State but relying upon Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. held that
since the compensation was not paid, therefore the acquisition in
question has lapsed – On appeal, held: The judgment in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Another was overruled by the Constitution
                                                                         E
Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority – The
facts admitted on record it is evident that the possession of the land
was taken after the acquisition of land was complete – However,
compensation was not paid – There is nothing on record to suggest
as to what action was taken by the person who claimed interest in
the property to seek compensation, in case land owned by him was         F
acquired more than two decades back and no compensation paid –
The conditions laid down in the Indore Development Authority were
not satisfied – Therefore, there cannot be lapsing of acquisition of
land.
      Allowing the appeals, the Court                                    G
      HELD: 1. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the
High Court shows that the Writ Petition was allowed relying upon
the judgement of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and
Another’s case. The case set by the writ petitioner was that late
H was the recorded owner of the land as noticed in para 2 of the         H
                                 631
632            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     judgment. The writ petitioner is his daughter--in--law. Even the
      husband of the writ petitioner had expired when the writ petition
      was filed. It was claimed that late H was having bhoomidari rights,
      however in terms of the stand taken by the appellant, no surviving
      membership was placed on record. Definite and undisputed stand
      taken by the respondent before the High Court was that the
B
      possession of the land was taken after the award was announced
      and the same was handed over to the Forest Department for
      development as green belt, agriculture and water body as the
      land falls in ‘O’ Zone. [Para 13][637-E-F]
             2. Initially, the stand sought to be taken by the writ
C     petitioner before the High Court was that the physical possession
      of the land had not been taken, however, the same was given up.
      The only argument pressed was that the compensation be paid
      as per the provisions of the 2013 Act. The Writ Petition was
      allowed relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal
D     Corporation and Another’s case. The High Court had also noticed
      the fact that there was dispute about title of the property which
      as per the stand taken by both the parties was kept open.
      Meaning thereby, even the compensation could not have been
      paid to the predecessor interest of the respondent/ writ petitioner.
      There is nothing on record to suggest as to what action was taken
E     by the person who claimed interest in the property to seek
      compensation, in case land owned by him was acquired more than
      two decades back and no compensation paid. The litigation started
      only with enactment of Act of 2013. The ingredients of Section
      24(2) of 2013 Act as interpreted by this Court in Indore
F     Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others’s case are not
      satisfied in the case in hand. There cannot be lapsing of acquisition
      of land. [Paras 14, 15][637-G-H; 638-A-C]
            Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.
            (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
G           Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
            Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
            SCR 783 – referred to.



H
    DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BATTI & ORS.                               633


                         Case Law Reference                                   A
[2014] 1 SCR 783                  referred to             Para 08
[2020] 3 SCR 1                    followed                Para 11
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1918
of 2023.                                                                      B
      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 12135 of 2015.
      With
      Civil Appeal No. 1919 of 2023.
                                                                              C
       Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      RAJESH BINDAL, J.
                                                                              D
      1. Leave granted.
      2. This order will dispose of two appeals arising out of order dated
30.11.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in
W.P(C) No. 12135/2015. One appeal is preferred by Delhi Development
Authority whereas the another has been filed by Government of NCT             E
of Delhi.
      3. The service on respondent is complete. However, no one
appeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing.
       4. The facts of the cases are available on record. Vide notification
dated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,          F
1894 (For short, ‘the Act’) large chunk of the land measuring about
3,500 Hectares was sought to be acquired for planned development of
part of Delhi. It was followed by notification issued on June 20, 1990
under Section 6 of the Act. The Award bearing No. 13/92-93 was
announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (DS), Delhi on 19.06.1992.
                                                                              G
       5. It is evident from the facts noticed by the High Court in the
impugned order that husband of the respondent late Mange Ram was
son of late Harkesh. He was father-in-law of the respondent no.1- writ
petitioner. He was claimed to be the recorded owner of 1/12th share [01
bigha and 19 biswas and 03 biswansi] in land bearing Khasra Nos. 281/
                                                                              H
634            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     4(10-11), 282/4 (10-3) and 80(2-8) total area measuring 23 bighas and 2
      biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Ghari Mandu, Shahdara,
      Delhi.
            6. There is nothing on record to suggest the acquisition in question
      was ever challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.1.
B     The writ petition came to be filed in the year 2015 referring to Section
      24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
      Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the
      2013 Act”) claiming that the possession of land having not been taken
      and the compensation not paid, the acquisition has lapsed.
C             7. The High Court noticed the fact that the possession of the land
      had been taken by the State and handed over to the Forest Department
      for development as green belt, agriculture and water body as the land
      falls in ‘O’ Zone. It was further pleaded that respondent no.1 was not
      entitled to receive any compensation as the land, in fact, vested in Gaon
      Sabha.
D
             8. After considering the arguments raised by learned counsel
      appearing for the parties, the High Court, while relying upon the judgment
      of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand
      Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 held that the acquisition
      in question has lapsed qua the land of the respondent no.1 as the
E     compensation therefor had not been tendered. The issue regarding
      entitlement of compensation to the respondent as there was dispute
      regarding the title of the land, was kept open.
             9. The arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for the
      appellant are that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this
F     Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby earlier judgment of this Court in Pune
      Municipal Corporation & Anr.’s case (supra) was overruled the order
      passed by the High Court is to be set aside. It was opined by the
      Constitution Bench that compliance to either of the two conditions i.e.
G     taking over of possession of the land or payment of compensation, is
      good enough to sustain the acquisition. In the case in hand, from the
      facts admitted on record it is evident that the possession of the land was
      taken after the acquisition was complete. There was no question of
      payment of compensation to predecessor in interest of the respondent
      no.1 as admittedly there was dispute regarding title of the land. The
H
    DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BATTI & ORS.                              635
                [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

land is recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Even the High Court in           A
the impugned order had kept the question of title open.
      10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
      11. There is no dispute on the fact that the judgment of this Court
in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another’s case (supra), was relied
upon by the High Court to hold that the acquisition in question had          B
lapsed. It was overruled by the Constitution Bench judgment of this
Court in the Indore Development Authority’s case (supra). Para 362
thereof is extracted below:
      “362. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
      Corporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and all other           C
      decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been
      followed, are also overruled.”
       12. Various questions required to be considered by the Constitution
Bench were answered in para 366 of the judgment. The same read as
under:                                                                       D
      “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
                                                                             E
      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
                                                                             F
      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.
      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                G
      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 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           H
636     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     paid then there is no 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
B     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 1894 Act shall be entitled
      to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013
C     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
D     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
F     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).

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
H     there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
    DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BATTI & ORS.                               637
                [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

      366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed           A
      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
                                                                              B
      subsistence of interim orders passed 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               C
      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             D
      acquisition.”
        13. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court
shows that the Writ Petition was allowed relying upon the judgement of
this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another’s case (supra).
The case set by the writ petitioner was that late Harkesh was the recorded    E
owner of the land as noticed in para 2 of the judgment. The writ petitioner
is his daughter-in-law. Even the husband of the writ petitioner had expired
when the writ petition was filed. It was claimed that late Harkesh was
having bhoomidari rights, however in terms of the stand taken by the
appellant, no surviving membership was placed on record. Definite and
undisputed stand taken by the respondent before the High Court was            F
that the possession of the land was taken after the award was announced
and the same was handed over to the Forest Department for development
as green belt, agriculture and water body as the land falls in ‘O’ Zone.
      14. Initially, the stand sought to be taken by the writ petitioner
before the High Court was that the physical possession of the land had        G
not been taken, however, the same was given up. The only argument
pressed was that the compensation be paid as per the provisions of the
2013 Act. The Writ Petition was allowed relying upon the judgment of
this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another’s case (supra).
The High Court had also noticed the fact that there was dispute about         H
638             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     title of the property which as per the stand taken by both the parties was
      kept open. Meaning thereby, even the compensation could not have been
      paid to the predecessor interest of the respondent/ writ petitioner. There
      is nothing on record to suggest as to what action was taken by the person
      who claimed interest in the property to seek compensation, in case land
      owned by him was acquired more than two decades back and no
B
      compensation paid. The litigation started only with enactment of Act of
      2013
             15. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal deserves
      to be allowed as the ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act as interpreted
      by this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and
C     Others’s case (supra) are not satisfied in the case in hand. There cannot
      be lapsing of acquisition of land.
            16. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order
      passed by the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by the
      respondents in the High Court stands dismissed.
D

      Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeals allowed.
      (Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)



E




F




G




H