LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH)versusHARI CHAND AND ANR.

46                      [2023]
              SUPREME COURT    4 S.C.R. 46
                             REPORTS                      [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A             LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH)
                                       v.
                         HARI CHAND AND ANR.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 2926 of 2023)
B                              APRIL 19, 2023
        [M. R. SHAH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
            Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
     Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
     High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune
C    Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
     Ors. reported as [2014] 1 SCR 783 declared that the acquisition
     proceeding initiated w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have
     lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal
     Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in
D    Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as [2020]
     3 SCR 1– Applying the law laid down therein to the present case
     and the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken
     over, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition – Impugned
     judgment set aside.
           Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
E
           (2020) 8 SCC 129: [2020] 3 SCR 1 –followed.
           Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. 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 2
     [2020] 3 SCR 1                     followed                Para 2.1
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2926
     of 2023.
G
           From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.2017 of the High Court
     of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 3435 of 2016.
           Chandra Prakash, C. P. Rajwar, Vivek Singh, Ms. Somi Sharma,
     Advs. for the Appellant.
H          Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
                                      46
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) v. HARI CHAND                             47
                   AND ANR.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                             A
      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. 3435 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition and has declared that the acquisition with regard to the land in    B
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 (South), New Delhi has preferred the
present appeal.                                                              C
       2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and even as per the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Land
Acquisition Collector before the High Court, it was the case on behalf of
the appellant that the physical possession of the subject land was taken
over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 14.07.1987.            D
However, thereafter and 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 acquisition with
respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed on the ground
that the compensation with respect to the land in question had not been      E
paid.
       2.1 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 Constitution Bench of this Court in the case   F
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,         G
      (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
                                                                             H
48      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A    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
B
     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:
C        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
D    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.
         366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession
E    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
     paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken,
F    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
G    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
     provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section
H
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR (SOUTH) v. HARI CHAND                            49
             AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

    31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest   A
    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
                                                                            B
    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
    to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The
    obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section     C
    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.
       366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be         D
    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
    possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in          E
    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 deemed
    lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed     F
    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 computation of five years.           G
        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
                                                                            H
50              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                              [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A           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.”
            3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
B    Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and
     the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken over on
     14.07.1987, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition as observed
     and held by the High Court. Under the circumstances, the impugned
     judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
C           4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present
     appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
     Court is hereby quashed and set aside. There shall not be any deemed
     lapse of acquisition with respect to the land in question.
            Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
D           Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

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


E




F




G




H