GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusMOHD. ZUBAIR AND ANR.

                         [2022] 16 S.C.R. 625                               625


         GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.                                A
                                   v.
                    MOHD. ZUBAIR AND ANR.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 8930 of 2022)
                        DECEMBER 02, 2022                                   B
       [M. R. SHAH AND AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
      Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
Subsequent purchaser – Entitlement of, to claim lapsing of the
                                                                            C
acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Held: In
view of the decision in Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., subsequent
purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under
the Act, 2013.
      Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –           D
Land Acquisition – Possession taken on 16.07.2007 – It was specific
case of appellant that the possession of land in question was taken
over by preparing a possession proceeding on the spot – High Court
declared that the land acquisition with respect to the land in question
is deemed to have lapsed solely on the ground that the compensation         E
was not tendered to the original writ petitioner – Held: Not
sustainable in view of the Constitution Bench decision in the case
of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. – In the said
decision, it was observed that for lapsing of the acquisition under
s.24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, of not taking over the
possession and not paying/tendering the compensation, are required          F
to be satisfied and that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there
shall not be deemed lapse of the acquisition proceedings under
s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – In view of the fact that the possession
was taken, acquisition proceedings is not deemed to be lapsed.
      Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.                   G
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
      Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd.
      & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022; Government
      (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr. (2017)
      6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232 – relied on.                             H
                                  625
626             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A                              Case Law Reference
      [2017] 4 SCR 232                   relied on                  Para 2.1
      [2020] 3 SCR 1                     followed                   Para 2.2
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8930
B     of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2018 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2674 of 2017.
            Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
            Ashwani Kumar, Ishaan Sharma, Anshay Dhatwalia, Advs. for
C
      the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
D     and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
      Petition(C) No. 2674 of 2017 by which the High Court has declared that
      the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
      (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard to the subject land
      is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
E     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
      Court, it appears that a specific objection was raised on behalf of the
F     appellants – original respondents that the original writ petitioner being
      subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the acquisition
      proceedings. Before the High Court, it was also specifically pointed out
      and so stated in the counter that the possession of the land in question
      was taken over on 16.07.2007. However, thereafter, overruling the
      objection on behalf of the appellants on the maintainability of the writ
G     petition by the subsequent purchaser – original writ petitioner and ignoring
      the stand taken on behalf of the appellants that the possession was taken
      over on 16.07.2007, the High Court has declared the acquisition
      proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the
      ground that the compensation has not been tendered to the original writ
H     petitioner.
   GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. MOHD.                                627
         ZUBAIR AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       2.1 On the maintainability of the writ petition, challenge to the       A
land acquisition proceedings by the subsequent purchaser, in the recent
decision of this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority
Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3073 of
2022 after considering the catena of decisions on the point and even
after taking into consideration the decision of this Court in the case of
                                                                               B
Government (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust & Anr.,
(2017) 6 SCC 751, in the decision, which has been relied upon by the
High Court, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent
purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition proceedings. In view
of the decision of this Court in the case of Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. &
Ors. (supra) taking the view that the subsequent purchaser is not entitled     C
to claimlapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court taking the view
that the writ petition at the instance of the subsequent purchaser claiming
lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013 would be
maintainable, is unsustainable.
                                                                               D
       2.2 Even otherwise, the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court declaring that the acquisition proceedings under the Act,
1894 with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the compensation was
not tendered to the original writ petitioner is unsustainable in view of the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore                E
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC
129. At this stage, it is required to be noted that before the High Court,
it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants that the possession of
the land in question was taken over by preparing a possession proceeding
on the spot. In paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court in the     F
case of Indore Development Authority (supra) has observed and
held as under:-
         “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          G
      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 window
      period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim          H
628      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A     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 “and”. The deemed
B     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 no lapse. Similarly,
C     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 proviso
D     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
      1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
      provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section
E     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
      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
F     notification for land 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 in court. The
G     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
   GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. MOHD.                                  629
         ZUBAIR AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

           366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be          A
       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            B
       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       C
       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.
                                                                                 D
           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 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         E
       of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
       compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
       acquisition.”
      3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be              F
quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
       Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
                                                                                 G
Devika Gujral                                                  Appeal allowed.




                                                                                 H