NORTHERN DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusRAM CHANDER SINGH AND ORS.

                          [2023] 1 S.C.R. 419                            419


       NORTHERN DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION                              A
                                  v.
               RAM CHANDER SINGH AND ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 733 of 2023)
                                                                         B
                       FEBRUARY 09, 2023
         [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
       Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land acquired         C
u/s.4 of the Act, 1984 vide Notification dated 13.11.1959 – High
Court, relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation, allowed writ petition filed by
respondents and declared that acquisition with respect to the land
in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 as       D
the assessed compensation was never paid to the original owners
or his acknowledged successor-in-interest and instead the same was
deposited sometime in the year 1967 with the Treasury – Held: High
Court did not accept the case on behalf of the appellant that the
actual vacant physical possession of the land in question was taken
                                                                         E
over solely on the ground that the land is vacant and the vacant
portions in fact have been mortgaged and who constructed the
boundary wall, which cannot be recited in the present proceedings
– Nothing on record that at any point of time, either the recorded
owners or his successors had made any grievance with respect to
non-payment of compensation – Even the decision in the case of           F
Pune Municipal Corporation has been subsequently overruled by
the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development
Authority – Accordingly, twin conditions namely, not taking
possession and not paying compensation have to be satisfied and if
one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse of   G
the acquisition – Possession of land in question was duly taken on
01.05.1964 – High Court, thus, committed serious error in declaring
that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed u/s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Judgment of High Court
unsustainable.                                                           H
                                  419
420             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A             Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
              (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
              Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
              Misrimal Solanki & Ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 – held
              overruled.
B
                              Case Law Reference
      (2014) 3 SCC 183                held overruled            Para 2.3
      [2020] 3 SCR 1                  followed                  Para 3.3
C             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.733 of
      2023.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 18.09.2017 of the High Court
      of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No.9333 of 2014.
D           Praveen Swarup, K. P. Singh, Ms. Payal Swarup, Ms. Pratishtha
      Majumdar, Ajay Kumar Giri, Ms. Devesh Maurya, Devesh Maurya,
      Advs. for the Appellant.
            V Giri, Sr. Adv., Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Setu Niket, Rajat Bhatia,
      Ms. Priyanjali Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
E
              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
F
      Petition (C) No. 9333 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the
      said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein and has declared
      that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
      have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation
      and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
G     Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the North Delhi
      Municipal Corporation (NDMC) has preferred the present appeal.
            2. In the present case, the lands of village Chowkri Mubarakbad
      were acquired vide Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 dated
      13.11.1959. The Award came to be passed on dated 20.02.1964. One
H
      NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. RAM                                   421
        CHANDER SINGH AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Bodey S/o Munna Singh and Kalu Ram S/o Hetu were the recorded                    A
owners. According to the appellant, actual vacant physical possession
of the subject land was taken over and handed over to the requisition
agency. Till the writ petition was filed, neither the writ petitioners nor the
recorded owners challenged the acquisition proceedings under the Act,
1894.
                                                                                 B
       2.1 That the private respondents herein – original writ petitioners
approached the High Court by way of present writ petition for a
declaration that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The original
writ petitioners claimed the ownership over the land admeasuring 3000            C
sq. yards, i.e., 6 bigha from the share fallen to Bodey. It was the case on
behalf of the original writ petitioners that neither the compensation has
been tendered and/or paid to them nor the possession has been taken
over and, therefore, entitled to declaration as prayed.
      2.2 The Government of NCT of Delhi in its counter affidavit before         D
the High Court has stated as follows:-
       “7. That it is submitted that the lands of village Chowkri
       Mubarakbad were notified vide Notification under Section 4 of
       the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 13.11.1959 which was
       followed by the Notification under section 6 of the Act dated             E
       26.12.1962. The Award was also passed vide Award No.1686
       dated 20.2.1964 and none of the petitioners and/or the recorded
       owner/s challenged the same and accepted the acquisition
       proceedings. In pursuance of the acquisition proceedings, the
       answering respondent has duly taken the actual vacant physical
       possession of the subject land falling in khasra number 165 (12-          F
       19) which has been bifurcated in two parts as 165 min (6-10) and
       165 min (6-09) and the ownership as per the award is of Bodey S/
       o Munna Singh for (6-10) and for (6-09), the recorded owner has
       been shown as Kalu Ram S/o Hetu. It is pertinent to mention
       here that the petitioners have been claiming the relief for the land      G
       measuring 3000 square yards i.e. 6 bigha from the share fallen to
       Bodey i.e. (6- 10): It is submitted that in W.P.(C) 9333/2014
       pursuance of the Award, stated supra, the answering respondent
       has duly taken the actual vacant physical possession of the subject
       land falling in khasra number 165 (12-19) on 1.5.1964 and handed
                                                                                 H
422             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A           over the requisition agency. It is further submitted that the
            compensation was deposited with the Reference Court vide
            cheque number 389384 dated 3.9.1965 however the same was
            returned by the court of Ld. ADJ and thereafter deposited in
            Treasury vide cheque number 394710 dated 10.3.1967.”
B           2.3 Despite the above, the High Court, by the impugned judgment
      and order has allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition
      with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed as the
      assessed compensation was never paid to the original owners – Bodey
      Singh or his acknowledged successor-in-interest – Panna Lal and instead
C     the same was deposited sometime in the year 1967 with the Treasury.
      That thereafter, 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
      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
D     Act, 2013.
             3. From the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it can
      be seen that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and the
      Government of NCT of Delhi that the possession of the land was duly
      taken on 01.05.1964 and handed over to the requisition agency. It was
E     also the case on behalf of the appellant that the compensation was
      deposited with the Reference Court vide cheque number 389384 dated
      03.09.1965, however, the same was returned by the Court of Ld. ADJ
      and thereafter deposited in the Treasury on 10.3.1967.
             3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
F     Court, it appears that the High Court has not accepted the case on behalf
      of the appellant that the actual vacant physical possession of the land in
      question was taken over solely on the ground that the land is vacant and
      the vacant portions in fact have been mortgaged and who constructed
      the boundary wall, which cannot be recited in the present proceedings.
G     However, it is required to be noted that it was never the case on behalf
      of the original writ petitioners that they constructed the boundary wall.
      Against which, it was the specific case on behalf of the Government of
      NCT of Delhi that the possession of the land in question was taken over
      in the year 1964 and handed over to the requisition agency. It has come
      on record that on some portion, there was a construction and the rest
H
      NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. RAM                                423
        CHANDER SINGH AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

was vacant to be surrounded by boundary wall. Thus, there is no reason        A
to disbelieve the case on behalf of the appellant that in fact the physical
possession of the land in question was not taken over on 01.05.1964.
       3.2 Even otherwise, the amount of compensation was initially
deposited with the Reference Court and thereafter deposited in the
Treasury in the year 1967. Nothing is on record that at any point of time,    B
either the recorded owners or his successors had made any grievance
with respect to the non-payment of the compensation.
       3.3 Even the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. (supra) relied upon by the High Court while
passing the impugned judgment and order has been subsequently overruled       C
by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC
129. In paragraph 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has
observed and held as under:-
            “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal        D
      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         E
      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
      Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as            F
      “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
                                                                              G
      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.
                                                                              H
424      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            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.
B            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
C     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.

D            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
E     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
F     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
G     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
H
     NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. RAM                               425
       CHANDER SINGH AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2)       A
      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        B
      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
      under Section 24(2).                                                  C

             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     D
      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.
             366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to
                                                                            E
      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 of taking possession to reopen proceedings or        F
      mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court
      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 committed a very serious error in declaring that the         G
acquisition with respect to the land in question, which as such was
acquired in the year 1959 is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2)
of the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.
                                                                            H
426              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            5. 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 the acquisition with respect to the land in question. If the original
      writ petitioners have any grievance with respect to the compensation
      and/or if the compensation is not paid to the recorded owners and/or the
B
      successors, it will be open for them to claim the same, which may be
      considered in accordance with law and on merits.
            Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and
      circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
C            Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

      Bibhuti Bhushan Bose                                           Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)



D




E




F




G




H