GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusKARAMPAL AND ANR.

                        [2022] 15 S.C.R. 827                            827


        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.                             A
                                 v.
                     KARAMPAL AND ANR.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 8931 of 2022)
                       DECEMBER 02, 2022                                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) –
Land Acquisition – It was a specific case of appellant-State that
                                                                        C
possession was taken on 17.09.2008 and even the name of
government was mutated in the revenue records – However relying
on decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. and solely on the
ground that the amount of compensation was not paid or tendered
in accordance with law, High Court declared that the land acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under     D
s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Held: Original writ petitioner before the
High Court was the subsequent purchaser – As held in Delhi
Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., that
subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition
proceedings under the Act, 2013, High Court materially erred in
entertaining the writ petition by subsequent purchaser claiming         E
lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013 – Even
otherwise, order of High Court is not sustainable in view of the
Constitutional Bench decision of Supreme Court in Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. wherein it was held
that in case possession was taken but compensation not paid then        F
there is no lapse – High Court order set aside.
      Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
      Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd.
      & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 – relied on.                 G
      Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
      Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
      1 SCR 783 – referred to.

                                                                        H
                                827
828            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A                              Case Law Reference
      [2014] 1 SCR 783                    referred to           Para 2
      [2020] 3 SCR 1                      followed              Para 2.2
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8931
      of 2022.
B
            From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2017of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1202 of 2017.
            Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
           Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Advs. for the
C     Respondents.
            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
D
      (C) No. 1202 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
      petition preferred by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser
      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
E     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 Anr. have preferred
      the present appeal.
            2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
F     Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants
      and so stated in the counter affidavit before the High Court that the
      possession of the land in question was taken over on 17.09.2008 and
      even the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records.
      However, thereafter and despite the above, solely relying upon the
      decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and
G     Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC
      183 and solely on the ground that the compensation was not paid or
      tendered in accordance with law, the High Court has declared that the
      land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question has
      lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
H
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. KARAMPAL                               829
            AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original writ   A
petitioner before the High Court was the subsequent purchaser and as
observed and held by this Court in the case of Delhi Development
Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., - Civil Appeal No.
3073 of 2022, subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of
acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013. Therefore, the High Court
                                                                              B
has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition by the original writ
petitioner – subsequent purchaser claiming lapsing of the acquisition
proceedings under the Act, 2013.
       2.2 Even otherwise, on merits also, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. While passing the
impugned judgment and order and declaring that the acquisition                C
proceedings with respect to the land in question has lapsed under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013, the High Court has relied upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
(supra), which has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench
of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.                 D
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,
      (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in        E
      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 decisions following the same are       F
      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       G
      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 commencement of           H
830      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     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 an
      interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as
B     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 “and”.
      The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section
      24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of
C     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 no
      lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has
D     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 proviso
      to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to
E     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
      under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
F     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.
G            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
      31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation
H     or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. KARAMPAL                               831
            AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2)        A
       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
       and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest       B
       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).
                                                                              C
              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 of       D
       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 proceeding    E
       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.”                                            F
       3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and in
view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside
and is accordingly quashed and set aside.                                     G
       Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
       Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Devika Gujral                                               Appeal allowed.
                                                                              H