GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANRversusRAM PRAKASH SEHRAWAT AND ORS.

                        [2022] 17 S.C.R. 759                              759


  GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY, LAND                            A
       AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANR.
                                  v.
            RAM PRAKASH SEHRAWAT AND ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 9201 of 2022)                        B
                       DECEMBER 15, 2022
         [M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
        Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
                                                                          C
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Notification under s.4 of LA Act was
issued on 23.01.1965 and award was declared – Possession of the
land was taken and handed over to the DDA on 22.09.1986 – After
a period of 29 years of passing of the award and taking over of
possession, Respondent 1 and 2 filed the writ petition before the
High Court for declaring that the acquisition of lands in question        D
deemed to be lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – High Court
relied on Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. and declared that the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have
lapsed under s.24(2) solely on the ground that the compensation
was not paid to the recorded owners – On appeal, held: The view
                                                                          E
taken by the High Court relying upon the decision in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. is unsustainable – The decision
in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. which has been
relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment
and order has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench
of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal   F
and Ors. – Impugned judgment declaring that the acquisition with
respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under
s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 is set aside.
      Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
      (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.                       G
      Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
      Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
      1 SCR 783 – referred to.

                                                                          H
                                 759
760             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A                              Case Law Reference
      [2014] 1 SCR 783                     referred to                 Para 2
      [2020] 3 SCR 1                       followed                    Para 3.2
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9201
B     of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2015 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 4952 of 2015.
           Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
      Pandey, Amitabh Ranjan, Advs. for the Appellants.
C
            Vishnu Kant, Satya Ranjan Swain, Karan Arora, Kautilya Briat,
      Rabin Majumder, Ms. Akansha Srivastava, Joydeep Mukherjee, Ms.
      Mousmi Roy, Nand Ram, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Roshan Kumar, Manish
      Vashist, Advs. for the Respondents.
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
             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. 4952 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
E     said writ petition preferred by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein 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 “Act, 2013”), the
      Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Land and Building Department) and the Land
F     Acquisition Collector have preferred the present appeal.
             2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case,
      the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
      (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894) was issued on 23.01.1965 and
      the award was declared, followed by Section 12(2) notice on 19.09.1986.
G     As per the counter affidavit filed by the appellants before the High Court,
      the possession of the land in question was taken and handed over to the
      DDA on 22.09.1986. After a period of approximately 29 years of passing
      of the award and taking over of possession, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
      approached the High Court by way of present writ petition and prayed
H     that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
    GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECY., LAND AND                                761
 BUILDING DEPT. v. RAM PRAKASH SEHRAWAT [M. R. SHAH, J.]

have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the impugned               A
judgment and order, though the High Court has referred to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants filed before the High Court, in
which it was specifically stated that the possession of the land in question
was taken over and handed over to the DDA on 22.09.1986, however,
thereafter without further entering into the question of taking over the
                                                                                B
possession, by 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. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.
reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and has declared that the acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation       C
has not been paid to the recorded owners.
       3. It is the case on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the
actual possession of the land in question was not taken over and that
there is an illegal residential colony on the land in question for which the
regularization proceedings are going on and a writ petition is pending for      D
the same before the High Court. However, it is required to be noted that
it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants and as so mentioned
in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court that the possession of
the land in question was taken over and handed over to the DDA on
22.09.1986, and, therefore, the alleged possession of the acquired land
and the status of the original writ petitioners are nothing but one having      E
illegal possession and unlawful encroachment on the Government land.
       3.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that before the High
Court and even before this Court, possession proceedings have been
placed on record to show that the possession of the land in question
alongwith other lands were taken over and handed over to the Land and           F
Building Department on 22.09.1986. Apart from the same, even,
according to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, a Writ Petition No. 9366 of
2005 for regularization of the illegal construction of the residential colony
on the land in question is still pending in the High Court. Meaning thereby,
the original writ petitioners – respondent Nos. 1 and 2 admit that the          G
possession and construction on the land in question is illegal. From the
aforesaid, it can be seen that there may be an illegal residential colony in
which some other persons might be staying. Therefore, it cannot be
believed that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – original writ petitioners are
in possession of the land in question and/or at the relevant time possession
was not taken.                                                                  H
762            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A            3.2 The view taken by the High Court relying upon the decision of
      this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
      (supra) is unsustainable. It is required to be noted that the decision of
      this 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
B
      Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development
      Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.
      In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court in the
      case of Indore Development Authority (supra) 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
            [(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso to
E           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.
               366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
F           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
            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
   GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECY., LAND AND                             763
BUILDING DEPT. v. RAM PRAKASH SEHRAWAT [M. R. SHAH, J.]

        366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession       A
    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
                                                                            B
    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 in           C
    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 24(2) due        F
    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)         G
    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
764              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 17 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 interim orders passed
C            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
D            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.”
E           4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and
      without commenting upon the pending writ petition, pending before the
      High Court being Writ Petition No. 9366 of 2005, we set aside the
      impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition
      (C) No. 4952 of 2015 declaring that the acquisition with respect to the
F     land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
      Act, 2013.
            Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and
      circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
             Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
G
      Devika Gujral                                                  Appeal allowed.




H