LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMEHDI HASAN (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.

672                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   16 S.C.R. 672              [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A               LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                                       v.
             MEHDI HASAN (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 8887 of 2022)
B                           DECEMBER 12, 2022
                [M. R. SHAH AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
             Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
      Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
      Land acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 –
C
      Possession already taken in 2003 – High Court, on the ground,
      that the compensation was not tendered to the land owner under
      s.30(2) of Act of 2013, allowed writ petition and declared that the
      acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have
      lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Hence instant appeal –
D     Held: As per the law laid down in the case of Indore Development
      Authority, it cannot be said that the land proceedings are deemed to
      have lapsed – In order to attract s.24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin
      conditions of not taking possession and not tendering/payment of
      compensation are required to be satisfied – If one of the conditions
      is not satisfied, the acquisition proceedings are not deemed to have
E
      been lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – As per the Special
      Land Acquisition Officer as the possession was taken on 13.02.2003
      and was handed over to the Lucknow Development Authority on
      13.02.2003 and in view of the decision of this Court in the case of
      Indore Development Authority, the impugned judgment and order
F     passed by the High Court is unsustainable – Appeal allowed.
            Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
            (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
                            Case Law Reference
G     [2020] 3 SCR 1                   followed                  Para 2
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8887
      of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2017 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Misc. Bench No. 4149
H     of 2006.
                                      672
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MEHDI HASAN                                  673
         (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS.

     K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Shantanu Krishna, Sidharth Sarthi, Chitansh          A
Sharma, Animesh Tripathi, Advs. for the Appellant.
     Anukul Raj, Anubhav Deep Singh, Ms. Nikita Raj, Kumar
Dushyant Singh, Kabir Dixit, Advs. for the Respondents.
     R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Samarth Srivastava,
Nishant Kumar, Advs. for the Impleader.                                       B

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.
        1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 03.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at          C
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Misc. Bench No.4149 of 2006 by which
the High Court has allowed the said writ petition to the extent of Plot
No.219, 1 bigha, 10 biswa and 10 biswansi, Village Malesemau, Tehsil
& District Lucknow and has declared that the acquisition with respect
to the said land is deemed to have lapsed under Sub-section (2) of Section    D
24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act 2013’), the Lucknow Development Authority has
preferred the present appeal.
       2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
                                                                              E
respective parties including Shri R. Basant, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the subsequent purchasers and having considered
the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 and as it is reported
that the possession of the land in question was already taken over in
2003, delay caused in preferring the appeal condoned which as such            F
was already condoned vide earlier order dated 25.11.2022.
       3. Before the High Court the original writ petitioners questioned
the acquisition proceedings in relation to separate plots of land belonging
to them, however during pendency of the writ petition an application
was filed in the writ petition restricted to the plot no.219 only area1       G
bigha, 10 biswa and 10 biswansi of village Malesemau, Tehsil & District
Lucknow.
      3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and even taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 - Collector and the Lucknow             H
674             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A     Development Authority filed before the High Court, it appears that it
      was the specific case on behalf of the appellant - Authority that the
      possession of the land in question was duly taken on 13.02.2003 by the
      Special Land Acquisition Officer and was delivered to the Lucknow
      Development Authority vide Possession Certificate dated 13.02.2003. It
      was also stated that the compensation has now been deposited in the
B
      Court of District Judge under Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,
      1894. Without discussing anything on the possession taken by the Special
      Land Acquisition Officer delivered to the Lucknow Development
      Authority on 13.02.2003, thereafter the High Court has allowed the writ
      petition and has declared the acquisition with respect to the land in question
C     deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on
      the ground that the compensation was not tendered/paid to the original
      land owners under Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 at
      the time when the Act, 2013 came into force. However, the fact remains
      that the possession of the land in question as per the Land Acquisition
      Officer and the Lucknow Development Authority was duly taken on
D     13.02.2003 and was delivered to the Lucknow Development Authority
      on 13.02.2003 itself. That once the possession was taken much prior to
      Act 2013 came into force. As per the law laid down by this Court in the
      case of Indore Development Authority (supra), it cannot be said that
      the land proceedings are deemed to have lapsed. As per the law laid
E     down by this Court to attract Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions
      of not taking possession and not tendering/payment of compensation are
      required to be satisfied. As per the law laid down by this Court in the
      aforesaid decision if one of the conditions is not satisfied, the acquisition
      proceedings are not deemed to have been lapsed under Section 24(2) of
      the Act, 2013.
F
            3.2 In paragraph366 the Constitution Bench of this Court has
      observed and held as under:-
                366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
             questions as under:
G                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
H            period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MEHDI HASAN                             675
    (DECEASED) THR. LRS. & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

   order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided       A
   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”. The deemed
   lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the      B
   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 lapse. Similarly,
   if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken          C
   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 to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with       D
   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 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894         E
   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 the 2013 Act has to be paid to the
   “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition      F
   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           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
676              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A                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
             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 deemed
             lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed
C            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.
D                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 legality of mode
E
             of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
             compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
             acquisition.”
             4. In view of the above and as per the Special Land Acquisition
      Officer as the possession was taken on 13.02.2003 and was handed
F     over to the Lucknow Development Authority on 13.02.2003 and in view
      of the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development
      Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order
      passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside.
G            Present appeal is accordingly allowed.
             The original writ petition filed before the High Court stands
      dismissed.
             No costs.

H     Devika Gujral                                                Appeal allowed.