LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTORversusJAI PRAKASH TYAGI & ORS.

12                       [2023]
              SUPREME COURT     3 S.C.R. 12
                             REPORTS                     [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A                   LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR
                                      v.
                       JAI PRAKASH TYAGI & ORS.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 1300 of 2023)
B                           FEBRUARY 24, 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 the decision of Supreme Court in Pune
C
     Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
     Ors. declared that the acquisition proceedings w.r.t the entire land
     in question are deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – It was the specific
     case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession
     with respect to some portion of the lands could not be taken over
D    due to stay – Held: Despite the same and without going into the
     controversy of physical possession, the High Court mainly relying
     on Pune Municipal Corporation case passed the impugned judgment
     – Decision in the said case has been overruled by the Constitution
     Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. –
     Applying the law laid down therein to the present case, the High
E
     Court materially erred in declaring that the acquisition proceedings
     with respect to the entire land are deemed to have lapsed – There
     shall be no deemed lapse w.r.t the acquisition proceedings of the
     lands in question – Impugned judgment set aside.
           Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
F
           (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.
G                           Case Law Reference
     [2014] 1 SCR 783                referred to            Para 2
     [2020] 3 SCR 1                  followed               Para 3


H
                                      12
 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR v. JAI PRAKASH TYAGI                               13
                     & ORS.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1300                      A
of 2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 06.07.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.2198 of 2015.
      Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Advs. for the Appellant.
                                                                               B
     Anil Kumar Sharma, Apoorv Sharma, Anuj Sharma, Archit
Upadhayay, Ms. Charu Sharma, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ms. Ishaan
Sharma, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish Vashist, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.                                                           C
       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. 2198 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the said
writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect
to the subject lands in question comprised in Khasra Nos. 35/2/2 (6-04),       D
36/2/2 (4-13) and 40/2/2 (5-01) total measuring 15 bighas 18 biswa
situated in revenue estate of village Wazirabad are 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,
                                                                               E
New Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
       2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the LAC (Land
Acquisition Collector) before the High Court, it appears that it was the
specific case on behalf of the LAC that the possession of Khasra No.
                                                                               F
35/2/2 measuring 6 bighas 04 biswa was taken over on 22.09.1997; as
regards Khasra No. 36/2/2 measuring 4 bighas 13 biswa possession
was taken over in respect of 3 bighas of land on 22.09.1997, however,
the possession of 1 bigha 13 biswa out of that Khasra could not be taken
and so far as Khasra No. 40/2/2 is concerned, the possession was not
taken over. It was the case on behalf of the LAC that the possession           G
with respect to some portion of the lands could not be taken over due to
stay in writ petitions Nos. 2506/1982 and 3631/1982. Despite the above
and without going into the controversy of physical possession, mainly
relying upon the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal
                                                                               H
14            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A    Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court
     has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with
     respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section
     24(2) of the Act, 2013.
            3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
B    Corporation (supra) which has been heavily 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 Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.,
     reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and in paragraphs 365 and 366, this
     Court 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
E          [(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
           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
LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR v. JAI PRAKASH TYAGI                            15
              & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

          366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between               A
   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
   said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
                                                                           B
   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.
          366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
   24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation        C
   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
   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   F
   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
   compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation,
   cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under          G
   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).
          366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
   and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest        H
16            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 3 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
C          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
D          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
E          to invalidate acquisition.”
           4. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
     Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the
     High Court has materially erred in declaring that the acquisition
     proceedings with respect to the entire land i.e., 15 bigha 18 biswa are
F    deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable.
            5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and
     applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
     Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order
     passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. There shall
G    be no deemed lapse with respect to the acquisition proceedings of the
     lands in question under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Consequently,
     the writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner(s) before the
     High Court stands dismissed. However, while allowing the present appeal,
     it is observed that if the original land owners/recorded owners or the
     person(s) interested are not paid the compensation, they may be paid
H    the compensation with respect to the lands in question in accordance
 LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR v. JAI PRAKASH TYAGI                                      17
               & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and their prayer(s)             A
be considered in accordance with law and on their own merits.
       Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
                                                                                      B
Divya Pandey                                                        Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Roopanshi Virang, LCRAs)




                                                                                      C




                                                                                      D




                                                                                      E




                                                                                      F




                                                                                      G




                                                                                      H