DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusNARVADA DEVI & ORS.

                         [2023] 1 S.C.R. 389                          389


             DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                              A
                                V.
                    NARVADA DEVI & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 735 of 2023)
                                                                      B
                      FEBRUARY 09, 2023
         [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement     C
Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Respondent no.1 filed writ petition, claiming
relief for declaration that acquisition proceedings pertaining to
subject lands were deemed to have lapsed in view of s.24(2) of the
Act, 2013 as neither physical possession of the subject lands had
been taken nor compensation had been tendered to respondent no.1–
High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that acquisition    D
with respect to the land in question was deemed to have lapsed –
Held: The view taken by the High Court is contrary to the
Constitution Bench decision of Supreme Court in the Indore
Development Authority case – High Court was conscious of the
fact that the actual physical possession was not capable of being     E
taken due to illegal occupation by the encroachers – Though, High
Court granted declaration that acquisition proceedings with respect
to the subject lands were deemed to have lapsed, the High Court
observed that respondent no.1 would only be entitled to
compensation as per Act, 2013 – Once it is held that respondent
no.1 is not entitled to the relief of declaration of lapsing of the   F
acquisition proceedings, there is no question of payment of any
compensation to him as per the Act, 2013 – Under the circumstances
also, the impugned judgment of the High Court is unsustainable.
      Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
                                                                      G
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
                         Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1                 followed               Para 3

                                                                      H
                               389
390             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.735 Of
      2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 10.07.2018 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3383 of 2016.

B           Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Roshan Kumar, Manish
      Vashist, Advs. for the Appellant.
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
              M. R. SHAH, J.
C            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. 3383 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the
      said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein and has
      declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed
D     to have lapsed by virtue of 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 (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.
             2. Before the High Court, the respondent No. 1 – original writ
E     petitioner claimed the relief for a declaration that the acquisition
      proceedings pertaining to land measuring 504 sq. yards out of Khasra
      No.49/14 situated in the area of Village Pehladpur Bangar, National
      Capital Territory of Delhi are deemed to have lapsed in view of Section
      24(2) of the Act, 2013 as neither physical possession of the subject land
      has been taken nor the compensation has been tendered to the petitioner.
F
             2.1 Before the High Court and so stated in the counter affidavit,
      it was the case on behalf of the appellant – DDA that as such the
      payment of compensation in respect of the award amounting to Rs.
      80,40,76,004/- was released to L & B Department, GNCTD by cheque
      dated 09.08.2005. It was also the case on behalf of the DDA that the
G
      land measuring area 457 Bigha 08 Biswa, Village Pehladpur Bangar is
      in possession of the DDA but the remaining area is in illegal occupation
      in the nature of residential houses, factories, Katha Jat along with
      boundary wall and the steps are taken by the DDA to remove them but
      on and off the land grabbers encroach upon the DDA land. It was also
H     the case on behalf of the appellant - DDA that so far as the original writ
  DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NARVADA DEVI                              391
             AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

petitioner is concerned, he has encroached on the Government land          A
claiming himself to be the owner.
       2.2 Despite the above and without appreciating the reasons for
not taking the actual vacant possession of the remaining land, though as
per the possession proceedings dated 31.08.2005, physical possession
of the land measuring 457 Bigha was taken over and handed over to the      B
DDA, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that
the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have
lapsed.
       3. The view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore            C
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:-
            “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
      questions as under:                                                  D

             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.
                                                                           E
             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.                                  F
             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 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      G
      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
      lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has
      not been taken then there is no lapse.
                                                                           H
392      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            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
      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
B
      1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
      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
C     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
      notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
             366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation
D     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).
E     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.
             366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to
F     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
      possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in
G
      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 lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities
H
   DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NARVADA DEVI                                     393
              AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay                A
       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.
                                                                                   B
              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
                                                                                   C
       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.”
       4. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
                                                                                   D
Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and
the stand taken by the DDA in the counter filed before the High Court,
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable.
       4.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the High Court was
                                                                                   E
conscious of the fact that the actual physical possession is not capable
of being taken due to illegal occupation by the encroachers. Though, the
High Court has granted the declaration that the acquisition proceedings
with respect to the subject lands are deemed to have lapsed, the High
Court has observed that the original writ petitioner would only be entitled
to compensation as per Act, 2013.                                                  F
       4.2 As observed and held hereinabove, the original writ petitioner
shall not be entitled to the relief of declaration of lapsing of the acquisition
proceedings. Once that be so, there is no question of payment of any
compensation to the original writ petitioner as per the Act, 2013. Under
the circumstances also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the              G
High Court is unsustainable.
       5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the original writ
petition being Writ Petition (C) No. 3383 of 2016 stands dismissed.                H
394              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A           Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and
      circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
             Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

      Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                           Appeals allowed.
B     (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)




C




D




E




F




G




H