GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.versusSHIV DUTT SHARMA AND ANR.

686                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   15 S.C.R. 686               [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A                   GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.
                                        v.
                      SHIV DUTT SHARMA AND ANR.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 8198 of 2022)
B                            NOVEMBER 24, 2022
                [M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
            Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
      Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
      High Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in case of Pune
C
      Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
      Ors. and gave a specific finding that the possession of the subject
      land was taken, however compensation was not paid, therefore,
      declared the acquisition with respect to the land in question has
      lapsed u/s. 24(2) of the Act of 2013 – Held: The case relied on by
D     High Court has been overruled by the subsequent decision in Indore
      Development authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. in which the Constitution
      Bench of the Supreme Court held that in case possession has been
      taken and compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse –
      Therefore, judgment of the High Court set aside – Appeals allowed.
E           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]
            1 SCR 783 – referred to.
F                            Case Law Reference
      [2014] 1 SCR 783                  referred to           Para 3
      [2020] 3 SCR 1                    followed              Para 3.1
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8198
G     of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 05.02.2018 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No. 1870 of 2016.
            With
H
                                       686
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. SHIV DUTT SHARMA                             687
                    AND ANR.

      Civil Appeal No. 8248 of 2022.                                           A
      Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander, Ms. Diksha Narula, Manish
K. Bishnoi, Nirmal Prasad, Ms. Jasleen Chahal, Nishit Agrawal, Ishaan
Sharma, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                               B
      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
(C) No. 1870 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition preferred by the respondent No.1 herein and has declared that         C
the acquisition with respect to the land in question has 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 “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi as well as
the Land Acquisition Collector have preferred the present appeals.
                                                                               D
      2. We have heard Ms. Astha Tyagi and Shri Nishit Agrawal,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants and
Shri Manish K. Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent No.1.
       3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while passing the
                                                                               E
impugned judgment and order, the High Court has 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
and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question
has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensation
has not been paid/tendered to the original writ petitioner. However, there     F
is a specific finding given by the High Court that the possession of the
subject land has been taken over, however, the compensation has not
been paid to the recorded owner.
       3.1 It is the case on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the actual
possession of the land in question has not been taken over as the land in      G
question is occupied by the encroachers and that the area in question is
known as ‘Sanjay Mohalla’. However, it is required to be noted and as
observed hereinabove, in paragraph 8, the High Court has specifically
observed that there is a categorical assertion made in the counter affidavit
filed by the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession of the subject
                                                                               H
688            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     land has been taken over, however, the compensation has not been paid
      to the recorded owner. It may be that there may be illegal occupants
      and / or encroachers, but that does not mean that the possession of the
      land in question was taken over and/or handed over to the beneficiary
      department on 21.06.1973. As per the case on behalf of the Land
      Acquisition Collector, in any case, the landowner can be permitted to
B
      take the benefit of the encroachment made on the land in question. Be
      that it may, as observed hereinabove, while passing the impugned
      judgment and order, the High Court has relied upon the decision of this
      Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra)
      and the said decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and
C     Anr. (supra) has been subsequently specifically 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, it is observed and held as under:-
                  “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
D           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
            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
F           “and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision
            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
H           window period of five years excluding the period covered by an
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. SHIV DUTT SHARMA                          689
              AND ANR. [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 Section     G
    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
690             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 15 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           4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, and,
      more particularly, considering the subsequent decision of the Constitution
      Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
      (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
      unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is
G     accordingly quashed and set aside.
             The submission on behalf of the respondents that the encroachment
      on the land in question is being regularized is concerned, that is not the
      subject matter before this Court. It is ultimately for the appropriate court
      to take appropriate decision. However, so far as the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court is concerned, the same is
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. SHIV DUTT SHARMA                                691
              AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

unsustainable in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Indore         A
Development Authority (supra) and as observed hereinabove. The
present appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
       Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeals allowed.
                                                                                  B
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)




                                                                                  C




                                                                                  D




                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H