DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusCHANDERMAL & ORS.

752                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   17 S.C.R. 752               [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A                  DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                                        v.
                           CHANDERMAL & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 9115 of 2022)
B                            DECEMBER 15, 2022
               [M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
             Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
      Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
      Land Acquisition – Specific case of Land acquisition Collector
C
      (LAC) before High Court that possession of land in question was
      taken over by the LAC and was handed over to DDA – High Court
      also believed the taking over of the possession by the LAC, but
      thereafter on the ground that the compensation was not tendered to
      the original writ petitioners, High Court declared that the acquisition
D     is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Appeal
      by LAC – Held: Before the High Court, a counter affidavit was
      filed by LAC as well as DDA in which it was specifically mentioned
      that the land in question was handed over to DDA on 26.05.1998
      and therefore, the acquisition is complete and the lands vest in the
      Government and free from any encumbrances – Nothing is on record
E
      that at any point of time, the original writ petitioners made any
      grievance that the possession taken over on 26.05.1998 was not
      lawful – Even High Court in impugned judgment believed the stand
      taken by the LAC that the possession of the subject land was taken
      over – Under the circumstances, it is not permissible on the part of
F     the original writ petitioners to now contend that the possession taken
      over on 26.05.1998 was not lawful – The view taken by the High
      Court that the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2)
      of the Act, 2013 on the ground that though the possession of the
      subject lands was taken over but the compensation in respect of the
      subject lands was not tendered is contrary to the Constitution Bench
G
      decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v.
      Manoharlal and Ors. – Order of High Court is set aside.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD: 1. Before the High Court, a counter affidavit was
H     filed by LAC as well as DDA and in which it was specifically
                                       752
  DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CHANDERMAL &                            753
                     ORS.

mentioned that the land in question was handed over to DDA on            A
26.05.1998 and therefore, the acquisition is complete and the
lands vest in the Government and free from any encumbrances.
Nothing is on record that any rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf
of the original writ petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by the
LAC or DDA. Nothing is on record that at any point of time, the
                                                                         B
original writ petitioners – predecessors made any grievance that
the possession taken over on 26.05.1998 was not lawful. Even
the High Court in the impugned judgment and order has believed
the stand taken by the LAC that the possession of the subject
land has been taken over. Under the circumstances, it is too late
and/or not permissible on the part of the original writ petitioners      C
to now contend that the possession taken over on 26.05.1998
was not lawful. [Para 5][755-F-H; 756-A]
      2. In the present case, a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in 1964 and the award
was declared on 10.12.1997 and the possession was handed over            D
to DDA on 26.05.1998. So far as the submission on behalf of the
original writ petitioners that “in the possession certificate dated
26.05.1998, there was no mention of taking over of possession
of the subject lands by the Land Acquisition Collector from the
original writ petitioners – predecessors” is concerned, mere non-
mention of taking over of possession cannot be a ground not to           E
believe the possession certificate in which it is specifically
mentioned that the possession of the land in question is handed
over to the DDA. What is relevant is handing over of the
possession to the DDA. [Para 5.1][756-B-D]
      3. The view taken by the High Court that the acquisition is        F
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on
the ground that though the possession of the subject lands has
been taken over but the compensation in respect of the subject
lands has not been tendered is just contrary to the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development           G
Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [Para 5.2][756-E-F]
      Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.

                                                                         H
754             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A             E.LA. Aboobacker and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
              (2018) 18 SCC 560 : [2018] 12 SCR 263 – referred
              to.
                               Case Law Reference
      [2018] 12 SCR 263                   referred to               Para 3
B
      [2020] 3 SCR 1                      followed                  Para 5.2
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9115 of
      2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2018 of the High Court
C     of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2255 of 2016.
              With
              Civil Appeal No. 9123 of 2022.
              Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Advs. for the Appellant.
D           K. C. Jain, Haraprasad Sahu, Pranaya Kumar Mohapatra, Ms.
      Prachi Bajpai, 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 03.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
      Delhi in Writ Petition(C) No. 2255 of 2016 by which the High Court has
      allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein and
      has declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is
F     deemed to have lapsed underSection 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 (DDA) as well as the Government of NCT
      of Delhi have preferred the present appeals.
             2. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has
G
      declared that the acquisition with regard to the subject land is deemed
      to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that
      the compensation in respect of the subject land has not been tendered
      to the original writ petitioners – respondents herein. However, it is
      required to be noted that before the High Court, it was the specific
H     case on behalf of the appellants, more particularly, the Land Acquisition
  DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CHANDERMAL &                                 755
               ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Collector (LAC) that the possession of the land in question was taken         A
by the LAC and was handed over to the DDA. The High Court has
also believed the taking over of the possession by the LAC, but
thereafter on the ground that the compensation has not been tendered
to the original writ petitioners, the High Court has declared that the
acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.
                                                                              B
       3. Referring to the possession certificate dated 26.05.1998 relied
upon on behalf of the appellants (Annexure P/4), learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners has submitted that in
the said possession certificate, there is no reference of “taking over of
the possession of the subject land” by the LAC from the original writ
petitioners – predecessors. It is submitted that it only mentions “handing    C
over of possession by the Tehsil staff to the Land and Building
Department”. It is submitted that as per Section 16 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 only the Collector was empowered to take possession and
possession taken by his subordinate cannot be said to be lawful. It is
submitted that therefore the possession so alleged to be taken on             D
26.05.1998 cannot be said to be lawful possession. Reliance is placed on
the decision of this Court in the case of E.A. Aboobacker and Ors.
Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 560. It is further
submitted that as such the contesting respondents herein disputes the
actual taking over of possession and according to them, they are in
possession of the land in question.                                           E

       4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties at length.
       5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the High
Court, a counter affidavit was filed by LAC as well as DDA and in             F
which it was specifically mentioned that the land in question was handed
over to DDA on 26.05.1998 and therefore, the acquisition is complete
and the lands vest in the Government and free from any encumbrances.
Nothing is on record that any rejoinder affidavit was filed on behalf of
the original writ petitioners to the counter affidavit filed by the LAC or
DDA. Nothing is on record that at any point of time, the original writ        G
petitioners – predecessors made any grievance that the possession taken
over on 26.05.1998 was not lawful. Even the High Court in the impugned
judgment andorder has believed the stand taken by the LAC that the
possession of the subject land hasbeen taken over. Under the
circumstances, it is too late and/or not permissible on the part of the       H
756            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     original writ petitioners to now contend that the possession taken over
      on 26.05.1998 was not lawful.
             5.1 As observed and held hereinabove, solely on the ground that
      the compensation in respect of the subject land has not been tendered to
      the original writ petitioners, the High Court has declared that the
B     acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question is deemed to
      have been lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. It is required to
      be noted that in the present case, a notification under Section 4 of the
      Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in 1964 and the award was
      declared on 10.12.1997 and the possession was handed over to DDA on
      26.05.1998. So far as the submission on behalfof the original writ
C     petitioners that “in the possession certificate dated 26.05.1998, there
      was no mentionof taking over of possession of the subject lands by the
      Land Acquisition Collector from the original writ petitioners –
      predecessors” is concerned, mere non-mention of taking over of
      possession cannot be a ground not to believe the possession certificate
D     in which it is specifically mentioned that the possession of the land in
      question is handed over to the DDA. What is relevant is handing over of
      the possession to the DDA.
             5.2 The view taken by the High Court that the acquisition is deemed
      to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that
E     though the possession of the subject lands hasbeen taken over but the
      compensation in respect of the subject lands has not been tendered is
      just contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case
      of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020)
      8 SCC 129. In paragraph 366, it is observed and held by this Courtas
      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
G           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 provided
            under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it
H           has not been repealed.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. CHANDERMAL &                               757
             ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession       A
  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 compensation has been
                                                                          B
  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 in           C
  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)         G
  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).
     366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and
  as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest            H
758              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 17 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 interim orders passed
C            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 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not
D            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           6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, 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.
            Present appeals are accordingly allowed. However, in the facts
F     and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
             Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

      Devika Gujral                                                  Appeals allowed.

G




H