DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusNEM CHAND SHARMA AND ORS.

                          [2023] 1 S.C.R. 725                              725


              DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                  A
                                   v.
                NEM CHAND SHARMA AND ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 395 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) –
Lapse of Acquisition proceedings – Writ petition by the respondent-
                                                                           C
original writ petitioners seeking declaration that acquisition
proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in
view of s.24(2) – High Court allowed the petition solely on the
ground that it is not clear as to what compensation was paid and if
so, who raised the dispute – On appeal, held: For attracting the
provisions of s. 24(2), twin conditions of not taking over of possession   D
and not tendering/paying the compensation are to be satisfied and
if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any deemed
lapse of acquisition – On facts, the possession of the land was taken
andhanded over to the beneficiary department initially in 1990 and
thereafter, remaining 1 bigha was taken and handed over to the
                                                                           E
beneficiary department in the year 2007 – Thus, the order passed
by the High Court is not sustainable and is quashed and set aside –
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
        Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs Harakchand
        Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
                                                                           F
        SCR 783 – referred to.
        Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
        (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
                        Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783                 referred to              Para 2.1         G

[2020] 3 SCR 1                   followed                 Para 3
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.395 of
2023.
                                                                           H
                                  725
726             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A           From the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2017 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3446 of 2015.
            Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Advs. for the
      Appellant.
            Ms. Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Advs. for the Respondents.
B
            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
C     Petition (C) No. 3446 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
      said writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioners – respondents
      herein 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
D     Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
      referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority has
      preferred the present appeal.
            2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
      respective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and
E     order passed by the High Court.
            2.1    From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
                   Court, it appears that though the High Court has observed
                   and believed the case on behalf of the appellant and the
                   Government of NCT of Delhi that the possession of the
F                  land in question was taken over, still, 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 under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely
                   on the ground that it is not clear as to what compensation
                   was paid and if so, who raised the dispute and whether the
G
                   provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act, 1894 were
                   satisfied in accordance with the prevailing procedure. While
                   passing the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
                   has heavily relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in
                   the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.
H                  Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NEM CHAND                               727
       SHARMA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       SCC 183. However, it is required to be noted that the           A
       decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
       Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been subsequently
       overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court
       in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
       Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
                                                                       B
 2.2   Apart from the above, even in the case of Indore
       Development Authority (supra), the Constitution Bench
       of this Court has observed and held that for attracting the
       provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions
       of not taking over of possession and not tendering/paying
       the compensation are to be satisfied and if one of the          C
       conditions is not satisfied, there shall not be any deemed
       lapse of acquisition. In the present case, as observed
       hereinabove, the possession of the land in question was
       taken and handed over to the beneficiary department initially
       on 27.12.1990 and thereafter the remaining 1 bigha was          D
       taken and handed over to the beneficiary department on
       09.02.2007. In the case of Indore Development Authority
       (supra) in paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench
       of this Court has observed and held as under:-
                 “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune      E
          Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
          Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is
          hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune
          Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
          Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has
          been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree      F
          Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar
          Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353]
          cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled
          and other decisions following the same are also overruled.
          In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018)        G
          3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso to
          Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor”
          or as “and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore,
          that decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the
          discussion in the present judgment.
                                                                       H
728   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A              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
B         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 order of the court, then
C         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
D         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 paid. In other words, in case
E         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
F         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
G         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 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
H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. NEM CHAND                             729
       SHARMA AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of       A
       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 notification for land
       acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
                                                                     B
              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 obligation to
       pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section         C
       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.                                                          D
              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        E
       drawing of inquest 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           F
       under Section 24(2).
              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        G
       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.
                                                                     H
730              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                                 [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A                               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
B
                         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.”
            3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the Constitution
C     Bench decision in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra),
      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 appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Pending
D     applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

      Nidhi Jain                                                          Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Shashwat Jain, LCRAs)


E




F




G




H