DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusISLAMUDDIN & ORS.

                        [2016] 8 S.C.R. 729


             DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                A
                                 v.
                     ISLAMUDDJN & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No. 11826 of2016 etc.)
                      NOVEMBER 29, 2016                                 B

        [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
      Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation, Resettlement Act, 2013 - s. 24(2) -
Acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Lapse
of - Declaration - Entitlement to - Held: Since compensation has
                                                                        c
not been paid, owners are entitled to declaration u/s. 24(2).
       Locus Standi - Acquisition proceedings - In respect of land in
Delhi - Challenged - By the purchaser of the land - Plea of State
that the purchaser had no locus to challenge the proceedings as the     D
purchase/transfer of land after Notification uls. 4(1) of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was void - Held: Under Delhi Lands
(Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, restriction on transfer is only
after the Declaration u/s. 6(1) of 1894 Act- In the present case, the
transfer was prior to s. 6(1) Declaration, though after s. 4(1)
Notification - Hence the transfer was not void - Therefore, owners      E
cannot be non-suited for having no locus standi - Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 -ss. 4(1) and 6(1)-Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer)
Act, 1972 - ss. 3 and 4.
      Dismissing the appeals, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 Under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on                 F
Transfer) Act, 1972, the restriction on transfer is only after
publication of Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. Being a special law as far as Delhi is concerned, this
will, in no case, prevail over any othe1· general law on restriction
on transfer after initiation of acquisition proceedings. [Paras 5,      G
6] (732-F; 733-B-C]
      1.2 In the instant case, the transfer is prior to Section 6(1)
declaration, though after Section 4(1). Therefore, it is not correct
to say that the writ petitioners did not have any locus sl<mdi to
challenge the land acquisition on account of transfer being void        H
                                 729
730           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     as the transfer was made afte1· initiation of land acquisition
      proceedings. Therefore, the respondent cannot be non-suited
      on the ground that be has no locus standi. [Paras 7, 8J [733-C-D,
      F)
        2. The benefit under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
B Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
  Rehabilitation Resettlement Act, 2013 Act is available in the
  event of two circumstances - (i) The compensation has not been
  paid though the Award has been passed under the provisions of
  the 1894 Act prior to 01.01.2014; (ii) Despite passing an Award
  and payment of compensation, possession had not been taken
c five years prior to 01.01.2014. As far as the compensation part is
  concerned, there is no dispute that the same has not been paid.
  Hence, the writ petitioner is entitled to have the declaration under
  Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. [Para 8] [733-E-F]
           3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the
 D    appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty
      granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
      and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
      Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of the acquisition
      proceedings afresh. [Para 9] [733-G]
 E         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil, Appeal No. 11826
      of2016.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2014 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 7875 of2014.
                                     WITH
 F
            Civil Appeal No. 11827of2016.
         P. S. Narasimha,ASG, Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mahabir Singh, Ravinder
   Sethi, Amrender Saran, Anoop Baghi, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, P.P.
   Malhotra, A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Advs., Praneet Pranav, Ms. Binu Tamta,
 G Shadman Ali, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Vibhu Shanker Mishra, R. S. Nagar,
   Raj Bahadur Yadav, Ms. Meera Bhatia, M. P. Gupta, Dev Kumar, B. K.
   Prasad, D. S. Mahra, N.S. Vasisht, Vishal Singh, Ms. Jyoti Kataria,
   M.P. Bhargava, Pradeep Misra, S.K. Rout, Onkar Prasad, Meera Bhatia,
   Nitin Mishra, Rakesh Dahiya, Satyavan Kudalwal,Aditya Dahiya, Rajiv
   Kumar Ghawana, T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Puneet Sharma, Bankey
 H Bihari, Ms. Smita Maan, B.S. Maan, Vishal Maan, Naresh Maan, R.K.
   DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ISLAMUDDIN                           731


Shokeen, Roopansh Purohit, Sumit Bansal, Ateev Mathur, Ms. Richa A
Oberoi, Vikas Kumar, Preetik Kohli, Manish Paliwal, Vanshaja Shukla,
Ritika Jhuniani, Anup Kumar, B. Tripathy, Naresh Kaushik, Randhir
Pandey, Gaurav Goel, Praveen Sehrawat, Sumeer Sodhi, Arjun Nanda,
T. Mahipal, Ms. Bushra Parveen, Ms. Minali Deswal, Ms. Rachana
Srivastava, Atul Kumar, Ashwani Kumar, Rahul Bhatia, Ms. Richa
                                                                         8
Kapoor, Ms. Mallika Parmar, Ms. Seema Patnaha, Manoj K. Mishra,
Sandeep Kr. Dwivedi, Umesh Dubey, Ms. Meghna Kalra, Ms.
Madhubala, S.K. Pathak, Alok Gupta, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Deepak
Mishra, Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj, N .S. Dalal, D.P. Singh, R. C. Kaushik,
Amitabh Kumar Verma, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Sanchit Garg, Adnan
Siddiqui, Ajit Sharma, Amit Gupta, Ms. Mansi Kukreja, Anant Pavgi, c
(for Mitter & Mitter Co.), Yasir Rauf, Mohan Prasad Gupta, R.K. Rathore,
Shadman Ali, R.R. Rajesh, Vikash, M. K. Maroria, Ms. Monika, Sukrit
R. Kapoor, Manish K. Bishnoi, Venkat Poonia, Ms. Sushma Suri, Gaurav
Sarin, Mrs. Charul Sarin, Mrs. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Navin Chawla, Ms.
Nidhi Mohan Prashar, Rupeshwar Sandhu, Rajendra Prasad Saxena,
N.P. Sahani,Anil Kaushik, Raghvendra Verma, Rajinder Singh, Abhishek D
Mishra, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, R.K. Singh, Ms. Deepa Rai, Kedar Nath
Tripathy, Atul Kumar, Vikas Pandey, Ms. Sweety Singh, Tushar Duneja,
Girish Chandra, Ms. Minali Deswal, Raj iv Sharma, Ms. Archana Kumari,
Jamnesh Kumar, Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya, (for M/s Saharya
& Co.), Jagjit Singh, Chhabra, Anirudh Kumar, Sakshim Maheshwari, E
Ms Iti Sharma, Piyush Sharma, Ms. Priya Puri, Govind Goel, Ankit Goel,
Bharat Beriwal, Raj iv Ranjan Dwivedi, Ashish Garg, T. L. Garg, Alok
Bhachawat, Ms. Tanishi Chandra, Ms. Arnita Singh Kalka!, Ms. Garima
Prashad, Ms. S. Janani, Mohit D. Ram, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ms.
Jasmine Damkewala, Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Ram Naresh Yadav,
Bharat Bhushan, Rabin Majumder, Gagan Gupta, K. B. Rohtagi, Rajat
                                                                          F
Bhardwaj, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, Dhananjay Garg, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted.                                       G
      2. The appellant - Delhi Development Authority is aggrieved by
the Judgment dated 22.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi,
whereby the High Court declared that the acquisition proceedings in
question have lapsed on account of operation of Section 24(2) of the
                                                                         H
732             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
      Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, "2013 Act").
             3. In the case before us, the High Court has taken note of the fact
      that the compensation has never been paid to the owners. Be that as it
      may, the main contention urged is that the writ petitioner has no locus
B     standi to file a Writ Petition for the declaration that the proceedings
      have lapsed.
              4. Heavy reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Star
      Wire (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in ( 1996)
       11 SCC 698. It was a case where the land acquisition proceedings were
c     initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short,
      "1894 Act"). The Notification was issued on 01.06.1976. Section 6
      Declaration was published on 16.02.1977 and the Award was passed on
      03 .07 .1981. Section 18 Reference had also become final. Thereafter,
      the Writ Petition was filed on 21.01.1994. The Writ Petitioner therein
      contended that he was the person who had purchased the property after
D     the Section 4(1) Notification was issued. In that context, it was held
      that "Any encumbrance created by the erstwhile owner of the land
      after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not
      bind the State if the possession of the land is already taken over,
      after the award came to be passed." It was also held that such a
E     purchaser does not acquire any valid title and in such circumstances, it
      was held that those subsequent purchasers have no right to challenge
      the acquisition proceedings, much less the Award.
             5. Under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972,
      restriction on transfer is only after the Declaration under Section 6( 1) of
F     the 1894 Act is published. There is also a prohibition under Section 3
      which pertains to transfer of land already acquired by Central
      Government. What is relevant is Section 4, which reads as follows :-
            "4. Regulation on transfer of lands in relation to which
            acquisition proceedings have been initiated - No person shall,
G           except with the previous permission in writing of the competent
            authority, transfer or purport to transfer by sale, mortgage,
            gift, lease or otherwise any land or part thereof situated in
            the Union Territory of Delhi, which is proposed to be acquired
            in connection with the SchemP and in relation to which a
            declaration to the effect that such land or part thereof is
H           needed for a public purpose having been made by the Central
   DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ISLAMUDDIN                                     733
                   [KURIAN, J.]

      Government under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,              A
      the Central Government has not withdrawn from the
      acquisition under section 48 of that Act. "
       6. Section 9 deals with penalty for contravention of the provisions
of Section 3 or Section 4. Therefore, under the statutory scheme, the
restriction on transfer is only after publication of Notification under          B
Section 6 of the 1894 Act. Being a special law as far as Delhi is
concerned, this will, in no case, prevail over any other general law on
restriction on transfer after initiation of acquisition proceedings.
       7. In the instant case, the property is situated in Delhi and the
contention of the appellant on locus standi is based on the alleged void          c
transfer after initiation of th~ land \lcquisition proceedings. Such transfers
would be void in Delhi only in case the same is made after the declaration
under Section 6(1 ). In the instant case, the transfer is prior to Section
6( 1) declaration, though after Section 4( 1). Therefore, there is no merit
in the contention advanced by the appellant that the writ petitioners did
not have any locus standi to challenge the land acquisition.                      D
       8. The writ petitioner approached the High Court contending that
neither the compensation was paid nor the possession taken and hence,
sought for a declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The benefit
under Section 24(2) ofthe-2013 Act is available in the event of two
circumstances -(i) The compensation has not been paid though the Award            E
has been passed under the provisions of the I 894 Act prior to 01.0 I .20 I 4;
(ii) Despite passing an Award and payment of compensation, possession
had not been taken five years prior to 01.01.2014. As far as the
compensation part is concerned, there is no dispute that the ·same has
not been paid. Hence, the writ petitioner is entitled to have the declaration     F
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Since the respondent cannot be
non-suited on the ground that he has no locus standi, there is no merit in
the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
       9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant
is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 0
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20 I 3 for initiation of
the acquisition proceedings afresh.
       10. We make it clear that in case no fresh acquisition proceedings
are initiated within the said period of one year from today by issuing a          H
734              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2016] 8 S.C.R.


A     Notification under Section I I of the Act, the appellant, ifin possession,
      shall return the physical possession of the land to the owner.
             No costs.
           CJVJL APPEAL NO. 11827 OF 2016 [@SPECIAL LEAVE
      PETITION CC) NO. 11352 OF 2016
B
              I. Leave granted.
            2. ln terms of the Judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 11826 of
      2016 [@SLP (C) No. 19207 of 2015], as above, this civil appeal is
      dismissed.
C     Kalpana K. Tripathy                                       Appeals dismissed.