DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBHAGI SINGH AND ORS.

                          [2023] 1 S.C.R. 783                            783


             DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                 A
                                  v.
                    BHAGI SINGH AND ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 366 of 2023)
                        JANUARY 20, 2023                                 B
          [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
       Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) –
Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by
                                                                         C
the writ petitioner seeking declaration that acquisition proceedings
pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2)
– High Court held the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed on the
ground that no physical possession was taken in respect of the suit
land – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Impugned
Judgment contrary to law laid down by this Court in the Constitution     D
Bench decision in the Indore Development Authority’s case –
Possession of the land was taken over by DDA through LAC/ L&B
Department by drawing panchnama and preparing the possession
report which is permissible – Thus, order passed by the High Court
is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
                                                                         E
       Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors,
       (2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed.
                        Case Law Reference
(2020) 8 SCC 129                    followed             Para 4
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.366 of             F
2023.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.8291 of 2015.
       Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
Pandey, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Sujeeta            G
Srivastava, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal,
Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Smita Maan,
Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Shekhar Yadav, Ms.
Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Rachita Kadyan, N. S. Vashist, Gagan Gupta,
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, Advs.
for the appearing parties.                                               H
                                 783
784             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            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 Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
      Petition(C) No. 8291 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
B     said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated
      under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,
      1894”) with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed
      under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
      in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
      (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority
C     (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.
             2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
             3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court, it appears and so stated in the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition
      Collector (LAC)before the High Court that the possession of the land in
D     question – Khasra No. 28 was taken over by the DDA through LAC/
      L&B Department on 21.03.2007. Despite the above, the High Court
      has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is
      deemed to have lapsed on the ground that no physical possession was
      taken in respect of the suit land.
E            4. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
      just contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the Constitution Bench
      decision in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
      Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraph 366, the
      Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:-
F                    “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
             of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation
             has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
G
                     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.
H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BHAGI SINGH AND                             785
              ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

          366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between               A
   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
   said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
                                                                           B
   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.
          366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
   24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation        C
   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       D
   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
   acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to
   the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under     E
   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
   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        F
   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
   that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2)
   of the 2013 Act.                                                        G
          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).
          366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
   and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest
                                                                           H
786              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            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
             under Section 24(2).
B                   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
C            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
D            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.”
E
             5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
      Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand,
      more particularly, when the possession of the land in question is held to
      have been taken over by the DDA through LAC/ L&B Department on
      21.03.2007 by drawing the panchnama and preparing the possession
F     report, which is held to be permissible as observed and held by this court
      in the aforesaid decision. Under the circumstances, the impugned
      judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the
      same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed
      and set aside,
G            Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
             Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

      Nidhi Jain                                                  Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)

H