DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJ SINGH & ANR.

840                       [2022]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   17 S.C.R. 840                  [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A                    DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                                           v.
                                RAJ SINGH & ANR.
                           (Civil Appeal No. 8993 of 2022)
B                               DECEMBER 09, 2022
             [M. R. SHAH AND AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
             Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
      Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
      Land Acquisition – Possession taken on 19.01.2006 – High Court
C
      declared that the land acquisition with respect to the land in question
      is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that the amount of
      compensation was not paid to the land owners – Held: The view
      taken by the High Court is not sustainable in view of the
      Constitutional Bench decision of Supreme Court in Indore
D     Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. wherein it was held
      that in case possession was taken but compensation not paid then
      there is no lapse – High Court order set aside.
            Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
            (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
E                              Case Law Reference
      [2020] 3 SCR 1                    followed                      Para 3
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8993
      of 2022.
F           From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2018 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 10800 of 2016.
            Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Advs. for the Appellant.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G           M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
      Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.10800 of 2016 by which the High Court
      has allowed the said Writ Petition and has declared that the land acquisition
H     proceedings with respect to the land in question under Land Acquisition
                                          840
 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJ SINGH & ANR.                              841
                 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Act, 1894 is deemed to have lapsed under Sub-section (2) of Section 24        A
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act 2013’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the
present appeal.
       2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High             B
Court it appears that though in the counter affidavit filed before the High
Court filed by the Land Acquisition Collector it was stated that the
possession was taken on 19.01.2006. However, the details of the payment
of compensation are not available with the LAC Branch and therefore it
is not possible to state anything about payment of compensation, the
High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and has declared that the land       C
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed
under Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground
that the amount of compensation was not paid to the land owners.
        2.1 Now it is required to be noted that before the High Court it
was stated on behalf of the DDA that it released a sum of Rs.10 crores        D
to the Land and Building Department way back on 28.08.1990 in respect
of the land acquired. Therefore, the High Court has allowed the writ
petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect
to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under sub-section (2) of
Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation        E
was not actually paid to the land owners.
      3. The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable in view of
the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC
129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court          F
has observed and held as under:-
          “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune 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.                   G
      Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been
      followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree 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           H
842      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     [(2018) 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.
B        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
C     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
D     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”. 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
E     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 lapse. Similarly,
      if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken
      then there is no lapse.
F
          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
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
      compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land
H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJ SINGH & ANR.                           843
                [M. R. SHAH, J.]

   acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to        A
   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
   as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to     B
   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). 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)        C
   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
                                                                          D
   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
   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).                                                   E
       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   F
   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.
       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
                                                                          G
   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
   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.”                                                          H
844              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A            4. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed
      by the High Court is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set
      aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
             Present appeal is accordingly allowed.
            The original writ petition filed by respondent no.1 herein filed before
B     the High Court being W.P.(C) No.10800 of 2016 stands dismissed.
             No costs.

      Devika Gujral                                                  Appeal allowed.

C




D




E




F




G




H