THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND BUILDING AND ORS.versusANJEET SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.

678                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   15 S.C.R. 678               [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A         THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND
                      BUILDING AND ORS.
                                        v.
           ANJEET SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR.
B                        (Civil Appeal No. 8196 of 2022)
                             NOVEMBER 24, 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) –
C
      High Court relied upon its earlier decision in the case of Jagjeet
      Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., in which it had relied on the
      decision of Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
      and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. – High Court without
      entering into the question of possession, declared that the acquisition
D     with respect to land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2)
      of the Act, 2013 as the compensation with respect to the land in
      question was not paid – Held: The case of Pune Municipal corporation
      which was relied on by High Court has already been overruled by
      subsequent Supreme Court decision in Indore Development authority
      v. Manoharlal and Ors. in which the Constitution Bench held that for
E
      the purpose of deemed lapse of land acquisition u/s.24(2) of 2013
      Act, both the conditions namely the possession has not been taken
      and compensation not paid are required to be satisfied – In the
      intant case, as compensation was not paid due to inter se dispute
      between co- owners therefore respondents cannot make the claim
F     of deemed lapse of acquisition – In view of the decision of the
      Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority, the
      impugned judgment of High Court unsustainable.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD:1. From the judgment and order passed by the High
G     Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India &
      Ors., it appears that the High Court has heavily relied upon the
      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 High Court in the said case, i.e., Jagjeet
H
                                       678
   THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND BUILDING v.                679
                  ANJEET SINGH (DEAD) THR.


Singh & Ors., without going into the controversy of physical            A
possession had declared that the acquisition with respect to the
said land is deemed to have lapsed as the compensation with
respect to the land in question has not been tendered to the
recorded owner. However, it cannot be disputed that the decision
of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
                                                                        B
has been subsequently specifically overruled by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [Para 3.2][681-E-G]
      2. It was the specific case on behalf of the authority that the
possession of the land in question was already taken over on
22.09.1986. However, thereafter without entering into the               C
question of possession, the High Court has declared that the
acquisition with respect to land in question is deemed to have
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as the compensation
with respect to the land in question was not paid. As observed
and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development                D
Authority for the purpose of deemed lapse of land acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both the
conditions namely the possession of land has not been taken over
and the compensation not paid are required to be satisfied. As
observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority, if one of the conditions are not satisfied,      E
there cannot be any lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013. [Para 3.4][682-C-F]
      3. It is required to be noted that in the present case, the
compensation was not paid to the landowners in view of the fact
that there was ownership dispute between the co-owners with             F
respect to compensation. Therefore, if the compensation has not
been paid due to inter se dispute between the co-owners,
thereafter, it will not be open for the respondents – landowners
to make a grievance that once the compensation was not paid,
the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed. In any case, in view of       G
the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court was held to be unsustainable. [Para 3.5 and 3.6][685-A-B;
685-D-E]

                                                                        H
680            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A           Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
            (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
            Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
            Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
            1 SCR 783 – referred to.
B           Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (Writ
            Petition (C) No. 960 of 2015 in the Delhi High Court)
            – referred to.
                              Case Law Reference

C     [2014] 1 SCR 783                    referred to           Para 3.2
      [2020] 3 SCR 1                      followed              Para 3.2
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8196
      of 2022.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2017 of the High Court
D
      of Delhi, at New Delhi, in Writ Petition (C) No. 203 of 2015.
            Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
             Rishab Nagar, Raghab Nagar, Gopal Singh Chauhan, Deepak Goel,
      Rajiv Ghawana, Ms. Akshita Chhatwal, Ranjit Singh, T. V. S. Raghavendra
E     Sreyas, Ms. Gayatri Gulati, Siddharth Vasudev, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Akansh
      Singh, Ravi Bharuka, Ankit Agarwal, Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Advs.
      for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
F
             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. 203 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
      petition preferred by the respondent No.1 herein and has declared that
      the acquisition with respect to the land in question comprised in Khasra
G     No. 156 admeasuring 2 bighas, 4 biswas in village Lado Sarai, New
      Delhi, 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
      Department of Land and Building and the Land Acquisition Collector
      have preferred the present appeal.
H
   THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND BUILDING v.                       681
           ANJEET SINGH (DEAD) THR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]


      2. We have heard Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, learned counsel                 A
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Rishab Nagar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1(i) to 1(iv).
      3. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case,
the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 1986. The award
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was declared on 14.09.1986.               B
According to the appellants, the possession of the land in question was
taken on 22.09.1986.
       3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that relying upon its earlier decision in the case of
Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition                  C
(C) No. 960 of 2015, which was also with respect to Khasra No. 156
admeasuring 2 bighas, 4 biswas in village Lado Sarai, New Delhi, by
which the High Court allowed the said writ petition preferred by the
landowners and declared that the acquisition with respect to the said
land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the
High Court has allowed the present Writ Petition (C) No. 203 of 2015           D
and has disposed of the same in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition
(C) No. 960 of 2015.
       3.2 However, from the judgment and order passed by the High
Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 960 of 2015 in the case of Jagjeet
Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it appears that the High               E
Court has heavily relied upon the 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 High Court in
the said case, i.e., Jagjeet Singh & Ors. (supra), without going into
the controversy of physical possession had declared that the acquisition       F
with respect to the said land is deemed to have lapsed as the
compensation with respect to the land in question has not been tendered
to the recorded owner. However, it cannot be disputed that the decision
of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
(supra) has been subsequently specifically overruled by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority                G
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129.
       3.3 However, it is the case on behalf of the respondent Nos.1(i)
to 1(iv) that the Civil Appeal against the decision of the Delhi High Court
in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. (supra) has been dismissed by
this Court by common judgment and order dated 04.05.2017 and even              H
682             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     the review application has been dismissed and therefore, the impugned
      judgment and order passed by the High Court may not be interfered
      with by this Court. However, it is required to be noted that when Civil
      Appeal No. 6250 of 2017 in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. (supra)
      came to be dismissed, the law was not settled, which has ultimately
      been settled by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in the
B
      case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and therefore, the
      decision of this Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. (supra)
      shall not be of any assistance to the respondents in view of the law laid
      down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
      (supra). It is required to be noted that the review application has been
C     dismissed on the ground of delay and not on merits.
             3.4 Now on merits, it was the specific case on behalf of the authority
      that the possession of the land in question was already taken over on
      22.09.1986. However, thereafter without entering into the question of
      possession, the High Court has declared that the acquisition with respect
D     to land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
      Act, 2013 as the compensation with respect to the land in question was
      not paid. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore
      Development Authority (supra) for the purpose of deemed lapse of
      land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both
      the conditions namely the possession of land has not been taken over
E     and the compensation not paid are required to be satisfied. As observed
      and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
      (supra), if one of the conditions are not satisfied, there cannot be any
      lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In paragraphs
      365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore
F     Development Authority (supra) has observed and held as under:-
                  “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.
G           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
            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
H
THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND BUILDING v.                     683
        ANJEET SINGH (DEAD) THR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]


  [(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso to           A
  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           B
  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.                  C
         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.                                     D
         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         E
  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.
                                                                          F
         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    G
  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
                                                                          H
684      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 15 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     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).

D            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
E     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 due to their inaction to take possession and pay
      compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came
F     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.
             366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to
G     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
H
    THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND BUILDING v.                        685
            ANJEET SINGH (DEAD) THR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]


       mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court          A
       to invalidate acquisition.”
       3.5 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present
case, the compensation was not paid to the landowners in view of the
fact that there was ownership dispute between the co-owners with
respect to compensation. In paragraph 6 (vi), the respondents have               B
admitted the same, which reads as under:-
       “…………………….Admittedly, as per the available record, i.e.,
       Naksha Muntazmin, the compensation inclusive of solatium and
       interest up to 16th Sept 1986 was ordered not to be paid on account
       of dispute amongst the claimants. And nor was the corpus                  C
       deposited in the Reference Court as per the provisions of the
       Act.”
       3.6 Therefore, if the compensation has not been paid due to inter
se dispute between the co-owners, thereafter, it will not be open for the
respondents – landowners to make a grievance that once the                       D
compensation was not paid, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed. In
any case, 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.
      4. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present          E
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 203 of 2015 declaring that the acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside.
       Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.                          F
       Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H