GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusSH. NARENDER & ANR.

                          [2023] 1 S.C.R. 413                            413


               GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                              A
                                  v.
                     SH. NARENDER & ANR.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 740 of 2023)
                                                                         B
                       FEBRUARY 09, 2023
         [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Relying upon          C
the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation, the High Court allowed writ petition preferred by
respondent no.1 and declared that the land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the Act, 1894 of the subject land is deemed to have
lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Decision in the case of          D
Pune Municipal Corporation has been specifically overruled by the
Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development
Authority – Accordingly, twin conditions namely, not taking
possession and not paying compensation have to be satisfied and if
one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse of
                                                                         E
the acquisition – Possession of land in question was duly taken on
14.09.2007 – High Court, thus, committed serious error in declaring
that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Judgment of High Court
unsustainable.
                                                                         F
      Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
      Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
      Misrimal Solanki & Ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 – held
      overruled.                                                         G
                       Case Law Reference
(2014) 3 SCC 183                held overruled          Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1                  followed                Para 3
                                                                         H
                                 413
414             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.740 of
      2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2016 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.10670 of 2015.
B            Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Shivam Singh,
      Rohan Sharma, Ms. Shaswati Parhi, Gopal Singh, Ms. Iti Sharma, Rahul
      Bhatia, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish
      Vashist, Roshan Kumar, Nitin Mishra, Sahil Tagotra, Abhishek Pandey,
      Ms. Abhivyakti Banerjee, Ms. Sakshi Garg, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Advs.
C     for the appearing parties.
              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. 10670 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed
      the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original
      writ petitioner and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings
      initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to
E     as “Act, 1894”) with regard 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 “Act, 2013”), the Govt. of NCT of
      Delhi and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.
F
             2.From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court and even from the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it
      appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and
      original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken
G     on 14.09.2007. However, despite the above, relying 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, the
      High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the
      land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 of the subject
      land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. SH. NARENDER & ANR.                         415
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      3. However, it is required to be noted that the decision of this      A
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra),
which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned
judgment and order has been specifically overruled by the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In                     B
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,
                                                                            C
      (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
                                                                            D
      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      E
      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:                                                   F
             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.
                                                                            G
             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
416      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            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
      24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of
      authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the
B     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
      not been taken then there is no lapse.
C
             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
      majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on
D
      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
      under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
E     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
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
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. SH. NARENDER & ANR.                         417
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

             366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to      A
      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      D
      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   E
      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      F
      to invalidate acquisition.”
      4. In view of the above and applying the law laid down by this
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and
when it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and original       G
respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on
14.09.2007, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
declaring that the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act,
1894 with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under
                                                                            H
418              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A     Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and deserves to be 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.
B
      Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                           Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)




C




D




E




F




G




H