1.Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3986 Neetu Sachdeva writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question 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 ‘the Act 2013’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.
2.At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide
Notification dated 17.06.2005 issued under the provisions of
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 large tract of the
land measuring about 200 Bighas falling in Village Mundaka
was sought to be acquired. A declaration under Section 6
of the Act was issued and published thereafter on
31.05.2006. In the present case the dispute is with respect
to the land measuring 1 Bigha and 2 Biswas out of Khasra
No. 65/22/1. That, vide sale deed dated 17.06.2005, the
said land was purchased by one Ashok Kumar and Raj
Kumar Sharma. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.08.2005,
the aforesaid persons came to be mutated in the revenue
records. That thereafter vide GPA, Will, Affidavit, Agreement
to sell and Receipt dated 11.05.2010 the aforesaid Raj
Kumar Sharma sold 275 sq. yrds. land, out of 11 Biswas
owned by him, to respondent no.1 herein – original writ
petitioner. Thus, the respondent no.1 – original writ
petitioner can be said to be subsequent purchaser who
acquired the right, title or interest in the land in question
much after the land acquisition proceedings and the award
was declared, which was declared on 31.05.2007.
2.1 The respondent no.1 herein – original writ petitioner
filed the writ petition before the High Court to declare that
the acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013
on the ground that the compensation with respect to the
land in question is not paid.
2.2 Though it was specifically the case on behalf of the
appellant before the High Court so stated in the counter
affidavit that the possession of the land in question was
taken over on 15.12.2007 by drawing the panchnama and
that the original writ petitioner being subsequent purchaser
had no locus to challenge the acquisition, by the impugned
judgment and order the High Court has entertained the writ
petition preferred by respondent no.1 – original writ
petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect
to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2.3. As held by this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar &
Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 which
has been subsequently followed by this Court in the case of
Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and
Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal No.3646
of 2022 and Delhi Development Authority versus
Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal No.3073 of
2022, the subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge
the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the
Act, 2013. Under the circumstances the High Court has
seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by
the respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner – subsequent
purchaser who had acquired the right, title or interest in the
land in question subsequent to the acquisition proceedings,
subsequent to passing of the award. Under the
circumstances the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is unsustainable.
2.4 Even otherwise on merits also and in light of the
subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority versus
Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
declaring the acquisition with respect to the land in question
is deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable.
2.5 As observed hereinabove it was the specific case on
behalf of the appellant before the High Court and so stated
in the counter before the High Court that the possession of
the land in question was taken over on 15.12.2007.
2.6 In the case of Indore Development Authority (supra)
the Constitution Bench of this Court in paragraph 366 has
observed and held as under:-
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
answer the 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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 acquisition proceedings. In case of nondeposit 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 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 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).
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 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 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 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 mode of deposit of compensation in
the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
2.7 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra), on merits also the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
declaring that the acquisition with respect to land in
question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013 is unsustainable.
3.In view of the above and for the reason stated above the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently, the original writ petition filed by respondent no.1 filed before the High Court stands dismissed. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. [M.R. SHAH] [C.T. RAVIKUMAR] NEW DELHI; JANUARY 16, 2023.