DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusBHAGWAT SINGH & ORS.

                        [2022] 16 S.C.R. 593                             593


             DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                 A
                                  v.
                    BHAGWAT SINGH & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 7961 of 2022)
                       NOVEMBER 02, 2022                                 B
          [M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
      Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) –
Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed
                                                                         C
to have lapsed in certain cases – Writ petition by the landowners
claiming that acquisition with respect to the land deemed to be lapsed
u/s. 24(2) – Allowed by the High Court – On appeal, held: High
Court relying upon the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal
Corporation’s case ordered lapsing of the land in question u/s. 24
on the ground that the compensation was not paid to the landowners       D
– Said decision-Pune Municipal Corporation’s case has been overruled
by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Indore
Development Authority’s case – Furthermore, before the High Court,
it was the specific case of the Development Authority-appellant that
the possession of the land in question has already been taken – In
                                                                         E
view thereof, the order passed by the High Court is unsustainable
and is set aside.
      Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] (3) SCR 1 – followed.
      Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand                 F
      Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
      (1) SCR 783 – referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
[2014] (1) SCR 783               referred to            Para 2, 3, 4
                                                                         G
[2020] (3) SCR 1                 followed               Para 4
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7961
of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.10359 of 2015.                      H
                                 593
594             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A           Nitin Mishra, Adv. for the Appellant.
             Mohit Kumar Gupta, Mohd. Hashim Miyan, Mann Bidhuri, Advs.
      for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B           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. 10359 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
      said writ petition preferred by the private respondent herein – original
C     writ petitioner, and has held and declared that the acquisition with respect
      to the land in question has 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 has preferred the present appeal.
D            2. Having gone through the Impugned judgment and order passed
      by the High Court, it is seen that the High Court has ordered lapsing of
      the land in question under Section 24 of the Act, 2013 relying upon the
      decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and
      Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC
E     183 and on the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the
      landowners. However, it is required to be noted that before the High
      Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the Delhi Development
      Authority that the possession of the land in question has already been
      taken. As observed hereinabove on the ground that the compensation
      has not been paid to the landowner relying upon the decision of this
F     Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra),
      the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that
      the acquisition with respect to the land in question has lapsed.
            3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
      Corporationand Anr. (supra) relied upon by the High Court has been
G     overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of
      Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020)
      8 SCC 129 and in paragraph 366, it is ultimately concluded as under:-
               “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
            questions as under:
H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BHAGWAT SINGH &                             595
              ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the         A
   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.
      366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window
   period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim         B
   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”.        C
   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
   compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession
   has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no         D
   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        E
   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 Act. In case the obligation under Section        F
   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
   the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of       G
   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
   to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The             H
596            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A           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.
B               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
            report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking
C           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).
                366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed
D           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 interim orders passed
            by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
E
                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 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not
            revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded
F           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.”
             4. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Indore
G     Development Authority (supra), specifically overruling the decision
      of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
      (supra) relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned
      judgment and order, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
      High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and
      set aside.
H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BHAGWAT SINGH &                               597
              ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present     A
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the original writ
petition preferred by the original writ petitioner stands dismissed.

Nidhi Jain                                                 Appeal allowed.   B




                                                                             C




                                                                             D




                                                                             E




                                                                             F




                                                                             G




                                                                             H