DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusRAJESH DUA & ORS.

                          [2023] 1 S.C.R. 907                            907


             DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                                 A
                                  v.
                      RAJESH DUA & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 363 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) –
High Court relied upon its decision in Smt. Harbans Kaur v. Govt. of
                                                                         C
NCT of Delhi and Ors., in which it had relied on the Supreme Court
decision in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & Ors. – It held that depositing of the amount of
compensation with the Reference Court cannot be regarded as
compensation having been paid to the landowners and declared
that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to   D
have lapsed as actual physical possession of the subject land was
not taken over of the land acquiring agency – Held: The decision
in case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & Ors. has been overruled by the subsequent
Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development authority v.
Manoharlal and Ors. – Applying the law laid by the Supreme Court         E
in the instant case, the compensation with respect to the land in
question was deposited in the Reference Court in the year 1967
and that between 1967 and 2017, there is nothing on record to
show grievance of original landowners regarding non-payment of
compensation and the possession of the land was taken in the year        F
1967– Therefore, impugned judgment of the High Court
unsustainable – 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                   G
      Misrimal Solanki & ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
      SCR 783 – referred to.
      Smt. Harbans Kaur vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
      [W.P.(C) 5358 of 2014, decided on 02.02.2015] –
      referred to.                                                       H
                                 907
908             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A                              Case Law Reference
      [2020] 3 SCR 1                    followed            Para 4, 4.1, 5
      (2014) 3 SCC 183                  referred to         Para 2, 4.1
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.363 of
B     2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2017 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.6478 of 2017.
             Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
      Pandey, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Sujeeta
C     Srivastava, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal,
      Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Smita Maan,
      Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Shekhar Yadav, Ms.
      Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Rachita Kadyan, N. S. Vashist, Gagan Gupta,
      Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, Advs.
      for the appearing parties.
D
              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
E     Petition(C) No. 6478 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the
      said writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 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 Acquisition,
F
      Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
      “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred
      the present appeal.
             2. In the present case, the land in question was acquired in the
      year 1964 and the award was declared in the year 1967. According to
G     the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and so stated in the counter affidavit
      filed before the High Court, the possession of the land in question was
      taken over in the year 1967 by drawing the panchnama. The
      compensation with respect to the land in question was duly deposited
      with the Reference Court in the year 1967 itself. That thereafter the
H     respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein – original writ petitioners filed the writ
 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJESH DUA AND                               909
               ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

petition before the High Court in the year 2017 and prayed to declare        A
that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensation
was not actually tendered/paid to the landowners. Relying upon its earlier
decision in the case of Smt. Harbans Kaur Vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi and Ors. [W.P.(C) 5358 of 2014, decided on 02.02.2015], in which
after relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune            B
Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, it was held that the depositing
of the amount of compensation with the Reference Court cannot be
regarded as compensation having been paid to the landowners and the
High Court by the impugned judgment and order has allowed the writ           C
petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in
question is deemed to have lapsed as actual physical possession of the
subject land has not been taken over by the land acquiring agency. Feeling
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the
Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.
                                                                             D
      3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length.
      4. At the outset, it is required to be noted that according to the
LAC, the amount of compensation was deposited with the Reference
Court in the year 1967. Even the possession of the land in question was
                                                                             E
taken over by drawing the panchnama, which is a permissible mode as
observed and held by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in the
case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.,
(2020) 8 SCC 129.
       4.1 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that while deciding
the case of Smt.Harbans Kaur (supra), the High Court has relied              F
upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr (supra).However, the decision of this Court in
the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been
specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case
of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020)              G
8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this
Court 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
                                                                             H
910   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A     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 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
B     decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore
      Development Authority v. Shailendra [(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
C     the light of the discussion in the present judgment.
            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
D     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
      window period of five years excluding the period covered by
E     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
      possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as
F     “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 possession
      has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is
G     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
      24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation
      in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the
H     proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. RAJESH DUA AND                            911
              ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

     respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries          A
     (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 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           B
     compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of 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    C
     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 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         D
     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) of the
     2013 Act.                                                           E
           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 drawing of        F
     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).
                                                                         G
            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 as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence       H
912              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A                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
B                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 mode of deposit of compensation in
                 the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”
C
             5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
      Development Authority (supra), and considering the fact that the
      compensation with respect to the land in question was deposited in the
      Reference Court in the year 1967 and that between 1967 and 2017,
      nothing is on record to show that the writ petitioners were praying and/
D     or a grievance was made by the original landowners with respect to
      non-payment of compensation and that the possession of the land in
      question was stated to be taken in the year 1967 by drawing the
      panchnama, 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.
E
             Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
             Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

      Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeal allowed.
F     (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)




G




H