DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHIV RAJ & ORS.

                        [2023] 4 S.C.R. 41                             41


             DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                               A
                                 v.
                        SHIV RAJ & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 2934 of 2023)
                                                                       B
                          APRIL 19, 2023
   [M. R. SHAH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
      Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune            C
Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors. reported as [2014] 1 SCR 783 declared that the acquisition
proceeding initiated w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have
lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal
Corporation case relied upon by the High Court while passing the
                                                                       D
impugned judgment has been overruled by the Constitution Bench
in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as
[2020] 3 SCR 1– Applying the law laid down therein to the present
case and the fact that the possession of the land in question was
taken over, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition –
Impugned judgment set aside.                                           E
      Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
      Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
      Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]             F
      1 SCR 783 – referred to.
                      Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783                 referred to           Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1                   followed              Para 2.1        G
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2934
of 2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 8081 of 2015.
                                                                       H
                                41
42            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A          Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Ishaan Sharma, Manish
     Vashist, Ms. Deepti Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
           Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Ms. Sakshi
     Kakkar, Prashant Rawat, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava,
     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 Petition
C    (C) No. 8081 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
     petition and has declared that the acquisition 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, Rehabilitation
     and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”),
     the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.
D
            2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
     Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant
     before the High Court and even so stated in the counter filed before the
     High Court that the possession of the land in question was taken over on
     21.04.2006. However, thereafter and relying upon the decision of this
E    Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.
     Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the
     High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the
     acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed
     on the ground that the compensation with respect to the land in question
F    had not been paid.
            2.1 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
     Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the
     High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order, has been
     specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case
G    of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020)
     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,
H          (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SHIV RAJ & ORS.                         43
               [M. R. SHAH, J.]

  which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.                A
  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
                                                                       B
  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 the light of the discussion in the present
  judgment.                                                            C
     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     D
  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   E
  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   F
  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         G
  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 proviso
  to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to
                                                                       H
44      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A    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
     provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section
     31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest
B    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
     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.
C
         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
D    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.
        366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be
E    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
F
     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 have failed
G
     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 of interim orders passed
     by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
H
  DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SHIV RAJ & ORS.                                 45
                 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

           366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new        A
       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 concluded
       proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode
                                                                                 B
       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 case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and
the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken over on           C
21.04.2006, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition as observed
and held by the High Court. Under the circumstances, the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
       4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High              D
Court is hereby quashed and set aside. There shall not be any deemed
lapse of acquisition with respect to the land in question.
       Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.                     E

Divya Pandey                                                   Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)



                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H