GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusSUDESH VERMA AND ANR.

620                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   16 S.C.R. 620              [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A             GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
                                       v.
                        SUDESH VERMA AND ANR.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 8929 of 2022)
B                            DECEMBER 02, 2022
               [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) –
      High Court declared that the acquisition of lands in question deemed
C
      to have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Held: High Court
      failed to notice and consider the specific case on behalf of the
      appellants that at the relevant time, the possession could not be
      taken over due to the pending proceedings at the instance of the
      landowners challenging the acquisition proceedings, which ended
D     upto this Court – The original landowners failed in challenge to
      the acquisition proceedings upto this Court – Under the
      circumstances, when due to pendency of the land acquisition
      proceedings, the possession could not be taken over, thereafter, it
      will not be open for the landowners to contend that as the possession
      was not taken over, the land acquisition proceedings be deemed to
E
      have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – In view of Indore
      Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., the impugned judgment
      passed by the High Court declaring that the land acquisition
      proceedings with respect to the land in question has lapsed under
      s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and the same deserves to
F     be quashed and set aside.
            Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
            (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
            Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
            Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
G           1 SCR 783 – referred to.
                             Case Law Reference
      [2014] 1 SCR 783                referred to               Para 2
      [2020] 3 SCR 1                  followed                  Para 2.2
H
                                      620
  GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. SUDESH                               621
               VERMA AND ANR.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8929                     A
of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 5258 of 2015.
     Atul Kumar, Ms. Archana Kumari, Ms. Sweety Singh, Rahul
Pandey, Advs. for the Appellants.                                             B
     Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, 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 in Writ
Petition(C) No. 5258 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,
1894”) with regard to the landin question isdeemed to have lapsed under       D
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 Anr.
have preferred the present appeal.
      2. From the impugned judgment and order passedby the High               E
Court, it appears that while declaring that the acquisition proceedings
under the Act, 1894 is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013, the High Court has heavily relied 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.                      F
       2.1 However, the High Court has failed to notice and consider the
specific case on behalf of the appellants that at the relevant time, the
possession could not be taken over due to the pending proceedings at
the instance of the landowners challenging the acquisition proceedings,
which ended upto this Court. The original landowners failed in challenge
                                                                              G
to the acquisition proceedings upto this Court. Under the circumstances,
when due to pendency of the land acquisition proceedings, the possession
could not be taken over, thereafter, it will not be open for the landowners
to contend that as the possession was not taken over, the land acquisition
proceedings be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013.                                                                         H
622           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A           2.2 In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
      Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, in paragraph 366, the
      Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:-
              “366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
           questions as under:
B              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 window
C          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 possession
D          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 compensation has been
E          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.
              366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
F          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 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation
G          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 acquisition proceedings. In case of
           non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years
H
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. SUDESH                            623
       VERMA AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

  or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the         A
  “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 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       B
  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, cannot claim
  that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2)
  of the 2013 Act.                                                       C

      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           D
  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).
                                                                         E
      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 interim orders passed     F
  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 pending on
  the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not     G
  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.”
                                                                         H
624              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A            3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that
      the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question has
      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.
B
             Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
             Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

      Devika Gujral                                               Appeal allowed.
C




D




E




F




G




H