DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJENDER SINGH & ORS.

                          [2023] 3 S.C.R. 7                              7


             DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                 A
                                  v.
                   RAJENDER SINGH & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No.1301 of 2023)
                       FEBRUARY 24, 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) –
Specific case on behalf of the DDA that possession of the lands in
                                                                         C
question were taken over and the compensation with respect to the
said lands was sent in RD due to dispute – High Court relying upon
the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., declared that the acquisition
with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.
24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation        D
was not paid in the manner known to law to the land owners –
Held: The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & ors. has been specifically overruled by the
Constitution Bench in the case Indore Development Authority v.
Manoharlal and Ors. – As per the law laid down by Supreme Court in
                                                                         E
the case of Indore Development Authority for deemed lapse under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, namely, (i) the
possession is not taken and (ii) the compensation is not tendered/
paid are to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied
there shall not be any lapse or deemed lapse under the Act, 2013 –
Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High            F
Court unsustainable and accordingly, set aside – Appeal allowed.
      Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
      Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand
      Misrimal Solanki & ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1                 G
      SCR 783 – referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1                  followed                Para 3.1
                                                                         H
                                  7
8            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A   [2014] 1 SCR 783                 referred to              Para 3
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1301
    of 2023.
          From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2017 of the High Court
    of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3561 of 2015.
B
           Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish Vashist, Advs.
    for the Appellant.
           Ms. A. Sahitya Veena, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Viksit Arora, Advs.
    for the Respondents.
C         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
    Petition (C) No. 3561 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the
D
    said 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
    Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
    Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
    “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present
E   appeal.
           2. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
    respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and
    order passed by the High Court and even the counter affidavit filed
    before the High Court by the Delhi Development Authority wherein it
F   was the specific case on behalf of the respondent therein that the
    possession of lands in question was taken over and handed over to the
    beneficiary department on 23.09.1981 and the compensation with respect
    to the said lands was sent in RD due to dispute.
          3. However, thereafter despite the above and relying upon the
G   earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
    Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,
    (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has declared that the acquisition
    with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under
    Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation
    was not paid in the manner known to law to the land owners.
H
 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJENDER SINGH                                9
              & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       3.1 The view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the law       A
laid down by this Court in the case of Indore 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:                                                     B
             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.
             366.2. In case the award has been passed within the              C
      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.
             366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between               D
      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
      said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor                 E
      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.
             366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section         F
      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
      1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the       G
      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
                                                                              H
10      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 3 S.C.R.


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
B    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). The landowners who had refused to accept
     compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation,
     cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under
C    Section 24(2) 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
D    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
     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
F    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.
            366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to
     new cause of action to question the legality of concluded
G    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
     concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the
     legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or
H
  DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJENDER SINGH                                   11
               & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court           A
       to invalidate acquisition.”
       4. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra) for deemed lapse under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, namely, (i) the possession
is not taken and (ii) the compensation is not tendered/paid are to be             B
satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any
lapse or deemed lapse under the Act, 2013.
       5. Applying the law laid down by this Court 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             C
quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. There
shall be no deemed lapse of the acquisition with respect to the lands in
question.
      Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.                                     D

Ankit Gyan                                                      Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)


                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H