Supreme Court of India
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSURENDER SINGH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2023 INSC 358
- Decided
- 11 April 2023
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- ABHAY S OKA
Holding
A deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act occurs only when both possession and compensation are absent; the satisfaction of either condition, such as taking possession, preserves the acquisition.
Summary
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) sought to acquire several parcels of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the compensation was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector but not paid to the owners. The owners filed writ petitions under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, claiming that the acquisition had lapsed because possession had not been taken and compensation was unpaid. The Delhi High Court, relying on the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment, held that the acquisition had indeed lapsed. On appeal, the Supreme Court, citing the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, overruled the Pune case and held that satisfaction of either possession or payment of compensation prevents a deemed lapse. Since possession of the land had been taken and handed over to DDA in each case, the acquisition remained valid. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court orders and allowed the appeals, dismissing the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when compensation is not paid but possession has been taken.
- Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal supersedes the earlier Pune Municipal Corporation judgment on the interpretation of Section 24(2).
- Whether the deposit of compensation in court, as opposed to actual payment to landowners, triggers a deemed lapse.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 16, s. 30, s. 31, s. 34, s. 4, s. 6
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013s. 24(1)(a), s. 24(1)(b), s. 24(2), s. 31, s. 34
Subjects
land acquisitiondeemed lapseSection 24(2)compensationpossessionRight to Fair Compensation ActLand Acquisition Act 1894Supreme CourtConstitution Benchoverruling precedent
Judgment
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 345 345
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A
v.
SURENDER SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1548 of 2023)
B
April 11, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) –
Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Acquisition C
proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Writ
petitions u/s. 24(2) claiming that acquisition under the 1894 Act
had lapsed as neither the possession was taken nor the compensation
therefor has been paid – High Courts relying on the Pune Municipal
Corporation’s case held that the acquisition has lapsed as the D
compensation was not paid to the land owners – On appeal, held:
The Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority’s
case overruling the Pune Municipal Corporation’s case held that
satisfaction of either of the conditions namely taking possession of
the acquired land or payment of compensation to the landowners
E
would be sufficient to save the acquisition from being lapsed in
terms of s. 24(2) – On facts, the land was handed over to the Delhi
Development Authority, as such one of the conditions was satisfied
– In view thereof, there is no deemed lapse and the acquisition is
sustained – Order of the High Court not sustainable and is set aside
– Land Acquisition Act, 1894. F
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors,
(2020) 8 SCC 129 – followed.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharma Trust and
Another (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232; Pune G
Municipal Corporation & Another Vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
SCR 783; Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India (2019) 10
SCC 229 – referred to.
H
345
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.
A Case Law Reference
[2017] 4 SCR 232 referred Paras 3, 12, 14
[2014] 1 SCR 783 referred Paras 3, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15
(2019) 10 SCC 229 referred Para 14
B (2020) 8 SCC 129 followed Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1548
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 9603 of 2015.
C
With
Civil Appeal Nos.1572, 1549 and 1547 of 2023.
Mishra Saurabh, Adv. for the Appellant.
D Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals as common
questions of law and fact are involved. The facts of the cases have been
E
noticed separately.
FACTS:
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1548 OF 2023
(DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SURENDER
F SINGH & ORS)
2. As pleaded, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was issued on 21.03.2003 seeking to
acquire land for Rohini Residential Scheme at Delhi. On 19.3.2004,
Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued. The Land Acquisition
G Collector announced the award under Section 11 of the Act assessing
compensation for the acquired land on 12.7.2005. The compensation
amount of 80,40,76,004/- for the acquisition of the land was deposited
by the State with the Land Acquisition Collector.
3. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section
H 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SURENDER SINGH & 347
ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “ 2013 A
Act”) claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed since neither
possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid.
The definite stand of the State before the High Court was that the
possession of the land was taken on 31.08.2005 and handed over to the
Delhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. The
B
title of the writ petitioners was in dispute. Hence, the compensation
could not be paid to them. It was deposited with the Land Acquisition
Collector. The High Court after relying upon the judgment of this Court
in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manav Dharma Trust and another’s
(2017) 6 SCC 751 held that petitioner therein had locus to file the writ
petition though not being the recorded owner. It further relied upon the C
judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & another v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and held
that the acquisition has lapsed as the compensation had not been paid to
the land owners. Though, the issue of title of the land was left open.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1572 OF 2023 D
(DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. RAM
SINGH & ORS.)
4. From the facts as are available on record, it is evident that
notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.09.1989 proposing
to acquire the land situated in the revenue estate of village Ghonda Gujran E
Khadar, Shahdra, Delhi, for the purpose of planned development of Delhi.
Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 20.06.1990 and
award bearing no. 8/92-93 was announced by the Land Acquisition
Collector on 19.06.1992.
5. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section F
24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed
as neither possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor has
been paid. The appellant’s stand before the High Court was that the
possession of the land was taken on 21.03.2007 and handed over to the
Delhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. The G
compensation could not be paid to the land owners as they never claimed
the same.
6. The High Court relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation’s case (supra) held that the acquisition has lapsed
as the compensation was not paid to the land owners.
H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.
A CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1549 OF 2023
(GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR. VS. GYAN CHAND &
ORS.)
7. From the facts as are available on record, it is evident that
B notification under Section 4 of Act seeking to acquire the land situated in
revenue estate of villages Tughlakabad, Delhi, was issued on 25.01.1965.
The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act
on 13.02.1969. The award bearing No. 50-A/1969-70 for the same was
announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 04.11.1981.
C 8. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed
since neither the possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor
has been paid. The appellant’s stand before the High Court was that the
possession of the land was taken on 23.11.1981 and handed over to the
Delhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. The
D compensation could not be paid to the land owners as they never claimed
the same. It was further submitted that the entire record pertaining to
the compensation was not traceable being old.
9. The High Court relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation’s case (supra) held that the acquisition has lapsed
E as the compensation was not paid to the land owners.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1547 OF 2023
(DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. VEENA
JAIN & ORS.)
F 10. From the facts of the case as are available on record, it is
evident that vide notification dated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 of
the Act large chunk of the land including the land of petitioner comprised
in Khasra No.490, measuring 1 bigha 1 biswa situated in revenue estate
of village Madan Pur Khadar, New Delhi was sought to be acquired for
G planned development of Delhi. It was followed by the notification issued
under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act. The Award bearing
No.20/92-93 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector /
Collection (DS) on 19.06.1992.
11. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section
H 24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SURENDER SINGH & 349
ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
as neither the possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor A
has been paid. The appellant’s stand before the High Court was that the
possession of the land was taken on 03.12.2012 and handed over to the
Delhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. The
compensation was sent to the Reference Court under Section 30-31 of
the Act on account of dispute of apportionment amongst different owners.
B
12. The High Court relying upon the judgment of this Court in
Manav Dharma Trust and another’s case (supra)held that the
petitioner has locus to file the writ petition though not being the recorded
owner. The High Court further relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Pune Municipal Corporation’s case (supra) and held that the acquisition C
has lapsed as the compensation was not paid to the land owners. The
question of title of subject land was left open to be decided by the
appropriate forum.
ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE COUNSELS:
13. The arguments raised by learned counsels appearing for the D
appellants are that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this
Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others
(2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby earlier judgment of this Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation & Anr.’s case (supra) was overruled, the orders
passed by the High Court, in aforesaid Civil Appeals are liable to be set E
aside. It was opined by the Constitution Bench that compliance of either
of the two conditions i.e. taking over of possession of the land or payment
of compensation, is good enough to sustain the acquisition. From the
undisputed facts available on record it is evident that in all cases, the
possession of land in dispute was taken after the acquisition was complete
and awards were announced. F
14. Additional arguments raised in Civil Appeal Nos. 1547 & 1548
of 2023 Civil Appeal No. 1547/2023 are that the judgment in Manav
Dharma Trust and another’s case (supra) was overruled by this Court
in subsequent judgment in Shiv Kumar vs. Union of India, (2019) 10
SCC 229 and the aforesaid Civil Appeals are not maintainable. G
15. On the other hand, the arguments raised by learned counsel
for the respondents are that the writ petitions having been decided on
the basis of law as existing on the date of decision by the High Court
cannot be set aside on the basis of the subsequent judgment of this
H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.
A Court. The High Court has held that compensation having not been paid,
as per the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by this Court in
Pune Municipal Corporation’s case (supra), the acquisition proceedings
lapsed. It is a matter of fact which has been noticed in the order passed
by the High Court that the possession of the land had already been taken
by the authority concerned.
B
16. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the records.
OBSERVATIONS:
17. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development
C Authority’s case (supra) had opined that satisfaction of either of the
conditions namely either taking possession of the acquired land or payment
of compensation to the landowners would be sufficient to save the
acquisition from being lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Various questions posed before the Constitution Bench of this Court
D were also answered. Relevant para-Nos. 362 and 366 are extracted
below:
“362. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and all other
decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has
E been followed, are also overruled. …
...
….
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:
F
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.
G
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 has not been repealed.
H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SURENDER SINGH & 351
ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between A
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
B
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.
(Emphasis supplied) C
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 D
(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 E
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 F
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 him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section
24(2) due to non-payment or non- deposit of compensation G
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) of the 2013 Act. H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.
A 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
inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed
B 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).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
C 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
D 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
E 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 mode of deposit of
F
compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
18. It is the undisputed fact on the record, as has been noticed in
the impugned orders passed by the High Court in the aforesaid Civil
Appeals, the possession of the land was taken over by the Land
G
Acquisition Collector and handed over to Delhi Development Authority.
Hence, one of the conditions being satisfied, we need not examine any
other argument.
19. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact and the law laid down by
H the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority’s
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SURENDER SINGH & 353
ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
case (supra), in our opinion the orders passed by the High Court cannot A
be legally sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The appeals
are allowed. The writ petitions filed by the respondents before the High
Court are ordered to be dismissed.
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed. B
(Assisted by : Shraddha Singh, LCRA)
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "land acquisition"Sign in to search