GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANRversusDAYANAND & ANR.

208                      [2023]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    2 S.C.R. 208                [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A               GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
                                        v.
                              DAYANAND & ANR.
                          (Civil Appeal No. 481 of 2023)
B                               MARCH 13, 2023
                [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) –
      As per Land Acquisition Collector the possession of the major portion
C
      of the land acquired was taken and notice u/s. 12 (2) LA Act was
      issued to the original writ petitioner, but he did not come to collect
      the compensation, then the same was sent to Revenue Deposit –
      High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in case of Pune
      Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
D     Ors. declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question
      is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 observing that
      even though possession of the major portion was taken, there was
      no categorical statement that payment of compensation was made
      with law applicable – Held: The case relied on by High Court has
      been overruled by the subsequent Constitution Bench decision in
E
      Indore Development authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. – Applying the
      law laid down by the Supreme Court and considering the facts of
      the case, the impugned judgment and the order passed by the High
      Court unsustainable – Accordingly, set aside – There shall be no
      deemed lapse of the acquisition with respect to the land in question
F     u/s. 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
            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 2.1
H
                                       208
        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. DAYANAND                              209


        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 481 of               A
2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 1754 of 2015.
        Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
                                                                            B
        Ms. Smita Maan, Nitin Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents.
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        M. R. SHAH, J.
      1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
                                                                            C
and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition
(C) No. 1754 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the said
writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the
land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as       D
“Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. have preferred
the present appeal.
       2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and from the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition
Collector (LAC) before the High Court which is reproduced in paragraph      E
3 of the impugned judgment by the High Court, it was the specific case
on behalf of the LAC that out of total land comprised in Khasra No. 115
(1-0) possession of 19 biswa was taken but possession of remaining 01
biswa could not be taken due to built up. It was also the case on behalf
of the LAC that after the award was declared the original writ petitioner
                                                                            F
was issued a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (LA Act) for collecting the compensation amount vide registered
post No. 4065 dated 27.02.2009 and when he did not come to collect the
compensation, it was sent to Revenue Deposit. Thus, as per the LAC
the possession of the major portion of the land acquired was taken by
drawing possession proceedings dated 13.04.2009, despite the above          G
and relying upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the
writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the
land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
                                                                            H
210            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     Act, 2013 by observing that “even though respondent No.2/LAC claims
      that possession was taken in respect of the major portion of the land i.e.,
      19 biswa, there is no categorical statement that payment of compensation
      was made in accordance with law declared to be applicable i.e., in the
      case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra).”
B           2.1 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
      Corporation (supra) which has been relied upon by the High Court
      has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case
      of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020)
      8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this
      Court has observed and held as under:-
C
                  “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
            which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
            Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been
D           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
            also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
E           [(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
            judgment.

F                 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
            the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has
G           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
            provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894
            Act as if it has not been repealed.
H
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. DAYANAND                                  211
            [M. R. SHAH, 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 been taken nor
                                                                        B
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.
       366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation        C
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 in accordance with the       D
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 or more, compensation under     E
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
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   F
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,
cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under          G
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).
       366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest        H
212            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A           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).
B                  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
C           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
D           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
E           to invalidate acquisition.”
              3. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present
      case the possession was taken in respect of the major portion of the land
      i.e., 19 biswa out of 20 biswa and the possession of one (01) biswa could
      not be taken due to built-up. Even the notice under Section 12(2) was
F     issued upon the original writ petitioner vide registered post No. 4065
      dated 27.02.2009, however, when the original writ petition did come to
      collect the compensation, it was sent to the revenue deposit. Once the
      notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued and served upon
      the original writ petitioner and he was called upon to collect the
      compensation and thereafter, when he did not come to collect the
G     compensation and then the compensation was sent to the revenue deposit,
      thereafter it would not be open for the original writ petitioner to contend
      that as the compensation has not been paid the acquisition proceedings
      are deemed to have lapsed. The original writ petitioner cannot be permitted
      to take the benefit of his own conduct/wrong.
H
       GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. DAYANAND                                    213
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       4. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore         A
Development Authority (supra) and considering the facts narrated
hereinabove and more particularly, when the major portion of the land in
question was taken as far as back on 13.04.2009 by drawing possession
proceedings which is held to be permissible in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) and taking into consideration the fact
                                                                                 B
that the notice under Section 12(2) of the LA Act was issued and served
upon the original writ petitioner but he did not collect the compensation
and therefore, the same was again sent to the revenue deposit, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that
the acquisition in respect of land in question is deemed to have lapsed is
unsustainable.                                                                   C
       5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court allowing the writ petition and declaring that the acquisition
in respect of the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. The original writ        D
petition before the High Court stands dismissed. There shall be no deemed
lapse of the acquisition with respect to the land in question under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013.
       Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.                     E


Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)


                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H