GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHIversusSIDDHARTH KAPOOR & ORS.

224                      [2023]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    2 S.C.R. 224              [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A                    GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
                                       v.
                       SIDDHARTH KAPOOR & ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 1596 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) –
C     High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in case of Pune
      Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
      Ors. and declared the acquisition proceedings with respect to the
      land in question deemed to have lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) of the
      2013 Act – It is the specific case of the appellant-State that the
      possession of the land was taken – Held: The case relied on by
D     High Court has been overruled by the subsequent Constitution
      Bench decision in Indore Development authority v. Manoharlal and
      Ors. – Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court to the
      instant case, there is no deemed lapse u/s. 24(2) of the 2013 Act –
      Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Appeal allowed.
E           Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.
            (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
            Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
            Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
            SCR 783 – referred to.
F
                            Case Law Reference
      [2020] 3 SCR                      followed              Para 2.1, 3
      [2014] 1 SCR 783                  referred to           Para 2
G
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1596
      of 2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2016 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2512 of 2015.
H
                                      224
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SIDDHARTH KAPOOR                               225


     Atul Kumar, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Amitabh Ranjan, Rahul             A
Pandey, Mrs. Archana Kumari, Mrs. Sweety Singh, Mrs. Rachita
Kadyan, Advs. for the Appellants.
       Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G., N.S. Vasisht, Ms. Jyoti Kataria,
Varun Kapur, Ms. Smita Maan, Ashok Mathur, Sumit Bansal, Manish
Paliwal, Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Ranjit Singh Daler, D.V. Khatri, Mansoor       B
Ali, T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ishaan Sharma,
Manish Vasisht, Ashutosh Kaushik, Nitin Mishra, Mukesh Kumar Verma,
Vikas Gupta, Ms. Vuzmal Nehru, Ankit Gupta, Satya Parkash Gautam,
Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia, Jaideep Malik, Nitesh Dhankar, Sujeet Kumar,
Mahesh Chaurasia, Sunil Kumar Tomar, Ms. Soni, Ms. Reena Patel,
                                                                             C
Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Varun Agarwal, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Mrs.
Rukhmini Bobde, Prashant Rawat, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Malvika
Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Tanwangi Shukla, Ravi Bharuka, Ankit
Agarwal, Ms. Shalini Chandra, Praveen Swarup, K.P. Singh, Chandra
Pratap Singh, Hari Sahteshwar, Devesh Maurya, Ms. Pratishtha
Majumdar, Nishit Agrawal, Ishan Sharma, Ms. Kanishka Mittal,                 D
Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Dharam Raj Ohlan, Md. Zeeshan
Anjum, Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Surjeet Singh, Akash, Vishwa Pal Singh,
Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.                                                         E

       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. 2512 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 by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right    F
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 has preferred the present
appeal.
       2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High            G
Court, it appears that the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with respect to the
land in question was made as far as back on 12.07.2005. According to
the appellant and so stated in the counter before the High Court, it was
the specific case on behalf of the appellant that the possession of the      H
226            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     land in question was taken on 31.08.2005. However, despite the above
      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
B
      Act, 2013.
             2.1 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
      Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been heavily relied upon by
      the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has been
      subsequently overruled by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision
C     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:-
                  “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
            Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,
D           (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
            Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State
E           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
            “and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision
F           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:

G                  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 period of five years excluding the period covered by an
H
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI v. SIDDHARTH KAPOOR                             227
                [ M. R. SHAH, J.]

   interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as          A
   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          B
   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, if compensation has been paid, possession has         C
   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      D
   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   E
   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
   notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.      F

           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         G
   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
228              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A                   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
             report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking
B            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).
                    366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
C            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 by court has to be excluded in the
D            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.
E            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. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
      Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand,
      there shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act,
      2013. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed
      by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed
G     and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
             Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
             Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

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