GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ORS.versusKRISHAN KUMAR & ORS.

416                       [2023]
               SUPREME COURT     2 S.C.R. 416
                              REPORTS                      [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A                 GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
                                        v.
                         KRISHAN KUMAR & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 946 of 2023)
B                            FEBRUARY 17, 2023
       [M. R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR & SANJAY KAROL, 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 allowed the writ petition and declared that the
      acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed by
      virtue of s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal
      Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in
D     Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as –
      Further, no finding was given by High Court w.r.t the case on behalf
      of the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) that the possession of the
      disputed lands in question was taken and handed over to the
      beneficiary department-DDA immediately – Even the original writ
      petitioners admitted that they were not in possession, otherwise they
E
      would not have asked for return of the possession – The possession
      proceedings produced on record by LAC were as per the law laid
      down in the Indore Development Authority case – Applying the law
      laid down therein to the facts of the case on hand, there shall not be
      any deemed lapsed as held by the High Court – Impugned judgment
F     setaside – Land Acquisition Act,1894.
            Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
            and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 –
            followed.
            Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand
G           Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
            1 SCR 783 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
      [2014] 1 SCR 783                referred to             Para 3
H     [2020] 3 SCR 1                  followed                Para 3
                                       416
    GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI v. KRISHAN KUMAR                                 417


        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.946 of                A
2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.1178 of 2015.
        Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
                                                                             B
      Gurukrishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, N. P.
Sahni, Ms. Misha Rohatgi Mohta, Bharat Monga, Rajender Pd. Saxena,
Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Advs. for the Respondents.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        M. R. SHAH, J.                                                       C
      1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated
14.03.2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1178 of 2015 by which the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the
acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed   D
by virtue of 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 Government of NCT
of Delhi and Ors. have preferred the present appeal.
       2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High            E
Court and even from the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition
Collector (LAC) before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific
case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector – GNCTD that the
lands in question of Village Molarband were acquired vide Notification
under Section 4 dated 04.04.1964, award was declared by the LAC on
                                                                             F
19.10.1981 and the possession of the land falling in subject Khasra Nos.
154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) was taken on 10.04.1997 after preparing
the possession proceeding on the spot and the same was handed over to
the beneficiary department, i.e., DDA immediately. In paragraph 4 of
the counter affidavit, it was stated as under:-
        “4. That it is submitted that the lands of village Molarband were    G
        notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition
        Act dated 4.4.1964 which was followed by Notification under
        section 6 of the said Act vide Notification dated 7.12.1966. That
        the then Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award bearing No.
        1934-D dated 19.10.81 and the possession of the land falling in      H
418            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A           subject khasra number 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) was taken
            on 10.04.1997 after preparing Possession Proceeding on the spot,
            the same was handed over to the beneficiary department, i.e.,
            DDA immediately. The compensation of the land under reference
            however could not be paid to the recorded owners and is lying
            deposited in RD on 30.1.82. It is submitted that the petitioners are
B
            also admitting that the government has taken the actual vacant
            physical possession of the subject land as there is no averment in
            the writ petition regarding having possession of the petitioners
            and rather the petitioner has averred that the Government is liable
            to return the said land to the petitioner on page 19. The petitioners
C           have raised grievance of non-payment of compensation only.”
             3. Despite the above and relying upon the decision of this Court in
      the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
      Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground
      that the compensation has not been paid, the High Court has allowed the
D     writ petition and 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. No finding is given by the High Court with respect to the
      case on behalf of the LAC that the possession of the disputed lands in
      question was taken over on 10.04.1997 and was handed over to the
      beneficiary department, i.e., DDA immediately. Even from the averment
E     in para (I) in the writ petition, it was the case on behalf of the original
      writ petitioners that the possession of the land comprising of Khasra
      Nos. 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) is liable to be returned to the
      petitioners as the entire land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have
      lapsed. Meaning thereby, the original writ petitioners admitted that they
F     were not in possession, otherwise they would not have asked for return
      of the possession. Be that it may, the LAC had produced on record the
      possession proceedings, which had sufficient compliance as per the law
      laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
      Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
G           4. As observed hereinabove, in the present case, while allowing
      the writ petition, the High Court has mainly relied upon the decision of
      this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
      (supra), which decision has been overruled by the Constitution Bench
      decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
      (supra). In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court
H     has observed and held as under:-
GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI v. KRISHAN KUMAR                             419
             [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal     A
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.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been
followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar
                                                                     B
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
[(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         C
“and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision
too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present
judgment.
      366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under:                                                  D
       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           E
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            F
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              G
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.

                                                                     H
420      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A            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
      the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the
B
      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
C     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.
              366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
D     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 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept
      compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation,
E     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 treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).

F            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
      State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the
      2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse
G     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 due to their inaction to take possession and pay
      compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came
H
      GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI v. KRISHAN KUMAR                                   421
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the         A
       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                 B
       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 compensation in the treasury instead of court          C
       to invalidate acquisition.”
      5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that
the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have          D
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed
and set aside. There shall not be any deemed lapsed as observed and
held by the High Court.
      Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and           E
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
       Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Divya Pandey                                                   Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)
                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H