NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR.versusSUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.

                          [2023] 3 S.C.R. 107                            107


     NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR.                          A
                                  v.
             SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No.1353 of 2023)
                       FEBRUARY 24, 2023                                 B
         [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. reported as[2014] 1 SCR 783, allowed the writ petition and
declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated w.r.t the subject
land are deemed to have lapsed – On appeal, held: Decision in
Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the
Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority      D
v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as [2020] 3 SCR 1 – Applying the
law laid down therein, more particularly, the fact that physical
possession of the subject land was taken over and in fact was put
to use by the beneficiary department-Irrigation and Flood Control
Board for construction of Bankner Link Drain which was duly built,
                                                                         E
there shall not be any lapse of the acquisition w.r.t the subject land
– Impugned judgment being contrary to the decision in the Indore
Development Authority case is quashed and setaside – Writ petition
before the High Court is dismissed – Land Acquisition Act,1894.
      Indore Development Authority vs. 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.
                       Case Law Reference                                G
[2014] 1 SCR 783                referred to              Para 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1                  followed                 Para 2
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1353
of 2023.
                                                                         H
                                 107
108             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A           From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2018 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.12118 of 2015.
           Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
      Pandey, Rajiv Ranjan, Avdhesh Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants.
           Abhimanyu, Kunal Mann, Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Ms.
B     Manika Tripathy, 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. 12118 of 2015, by which, the High Court has allowed the said
      writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated
      under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regard to the subject land are
D     deemed to have lapsed and that the original writ petitioners are entitled
      to the compensation as per the Right to Fair Compensation and
      Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
      2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), Secretary, Land and
      Building Department, NCT of Delhi and Land Acquisition Collector have
      preferred the present appeal.
E
             2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court and even as per the counter affidavit(s) filed by LAC (Land
      Acquisition Collector) and Irrigation and Flood Control Department –
      beneficiary of the subject land before the High Court, the possession of
      the lands in question had been taken over and the land has been put to
F     use for construction of Bankner Link Drain. From the impugned judgment
      and order, it appears that the original writ petitioners as such never disputed
      the case on behalf of the original respondents that the physical possession
      of the subject land has been taken over and the land has been put to use.
      That the original writ petitioners restricted the prayer for grant of
      compensation as per the Act, 2013. However, thereafter, relying upon
G
      the earlier 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, the impugned judgment and order has
      been passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition proceedings
      with regard to the subject land are deemed to have lapsed and therefore,
H     the original writ petitioners shall be entitled to the compensation as per
  NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR. v.                            109
  SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the Act, 2013 on the ground that the compensation has not been paid.       A
However, the decision of this court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been 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, it is observed and held as under: -
                                                                           B
            “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
      followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar      C
      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        D
      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        E
      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.               F
             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.                                  G
            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 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of
      authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the
                                                                           H
110      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 3 S.C.R.


A     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 then there is no lapse.
B            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 respect to
      majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on
      the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the
C     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
      compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land
D     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 compensation
E     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 compensation
      or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim
F     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).

G            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
      2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse
H     under Section 24(2).
   NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR. v.                                   111
   SUBHASH CHANDER KHATRI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

              366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a               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
                                                                                   B
       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
       pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014.           C
       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
       to invalidate acquisition.”                                                 D
       3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand,
more particularly, the fact that physical possession of the subject land
has been taken over and in fact the subject land has been put to use by
the beneficiary department – Irrigation and Flood Control Board for                E
construction of Bankner Link Drain which has been duly built, there
shall not be any lapse of the acquisition with regard to the subject land as
observed and held by the High Court. The impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is just contrary to the decision of the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra), which is unsustainable.                                                   F

      4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition before
the High Court stands dismissed.
                                                                                   G
       Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
       Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Divya Pandey                                                     Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Roopanshi Virang, LCRAs)                     H