LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR.versusASHOK KUMAR & ORS.

196                      [2023]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    2 S.C.R. 196              [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A               LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR.
                                       v.
                          ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No. 482 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) –
      High Court relying on its decision in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v.
C
      Union of India & Ors. [W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014] and the decision of
      Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation case, allowed the writ
      petition and declared that the acquisition w.r.t the land in question
      is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) on the ground that neither the
      possession of the land in question was taken nor the compensation
D     was tendered/paid – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal
      Corporation has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of Supreme
      Court in Indore Development Authority case – Also, the decision of
      the High Court in Gyanender Singh is contrary to the said case – As
      per the law laid down in Indore Development Authority, the period
      during which the stay was operating is to be excluded – Thus, in
E
      the present case, in view of the fact that even when the 2013 Act
      came into force the stay order continued to operate due to which
      possession of the land in question could not be taken, as also
      observed by the High Court, there shall be no deemed lapse u/s.24(2)
      – Impugned judgment set aside.
F
            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.
G
            Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
            Decision dtd. 23.09.2014 of High Court of Delhi in
            W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014 – referred to.


H
                                      196
    LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR. v. ASHOK                              197
                   KUMAR & ORS.

                        Case Law Reference                                  A
[2014] 1 SCR 783                   referred to             Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1                     followed                Para 2
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 482 of
2023.                                                                       B
      From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3581 of 2015.
     Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula,
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Advs. for the Appellants.
                                                                            C
     Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Ms. Astha Sharma, Ravinder Singh, Srisatya
Mohanty, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Sanjeev Kaushik, Shreyas Awasthi,
Himanshu Chakravarty, Devvrat Singh, Muskan Surana, Ms. Sruthi
Venugopal, Vinay K. Shailendra, Ms. Worthing Kasar, Jagjit Singh
Chhabra, Saksham Maheshwari, Nitin Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents.
                                                                            D
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        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. 3581 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the said         E
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
“Act, 2013”), the Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. have preferred the
present appeal.                                                             F

      2. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court it can be seen that by the impugned
judgment and order the High Court has declared that the acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed on the        G
ground that neither the possession of the land in question was taken nor
the compensation has been tendered/paid 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, and decision of the High Court in the case of Gyanender Singh &        H
198            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors decided on 23.09.2014 in W.P. (C)
      No. 1393/2014.
             3. However, it is required to be noted that before the High Court
      it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant(s) and so recorded by
      the High Court in paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment and order that
B     the physical possession could not be taken because of the operation of
      stay order passed in writ petitions in which the stay order was continuing.
      The High Court has also observed that “it is an admitted position that the
      stay order continued to operate till 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came
      into effect.” In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
      Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, the Constitution Bench of
C     this Court has observed in paragraph 366 as under:-
                  “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
D           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
E           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.
                   366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
            possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”.
F           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 paid. In other words, in case possession
            has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no
G           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 court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso
H           to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR. v. ASHOK                               199
       KUMAR & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

 majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on      A
 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
                                                                         B
 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.
         366.5. In case a person has been tendered the                   C
 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 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept                 D
 compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation,
 cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under
 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).      E
        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
 possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in
 State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the         F
 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
 deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities
 have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay            G
 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
 computation of five years.
                                                                         H
200             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A                  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 revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen
            concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the
B
            legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or
            mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court
            to invalidate acquisition.”
             4. Thus, as per the decision of Constitution Bench of this Court in
      the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) the period during
C     which the stay was operating is to be excluded.
            5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
      Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and
      more particularly, even when the Act, 2013 came into force the stay
      order continued to operate and due to which the possession of the land
D     in question could not be taken, there shall be no deemed lapse under
      Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
            6. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
      Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) by the
      High Court and the decision of the High Court in the case of Gyanender
E     Singh (supra) are concerned, the decision of this Court in the case of
      Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been overruled by the
      Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development
      Authority (supra). The decision of the High Court in the case of
      Gyanender Singh (supra) is just contrary to the decision of this Court
F     in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). Therefore,
      the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
      unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
             7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
      present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
G     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
      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.
H
     LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ANR. v. ASHOK                                  201
            KUMAR & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.                          A
       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Divya Pandey                                                   Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Shevali Monga, LCRAs)
                                                                                 B




                                                                                 C




                                                                                 D




                                                                                 E




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H