GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. KARAMPAL AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 8931 of 2022) DECEMBER 02, 2022 [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) – Land Acquisition – It was a specific case of appellant-State that possession was taken on 17.09.2008 and even the name of
government was mutated in the revenue records – However relying on decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. and solely on the ground that the amount of compensation was not paid or tendered in accordance with law, High Court declared that the land acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 – Held: Original writ petitioner before the High Court was the subsequent purchaser – As held in Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., that subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013, High Court materially erred in entertaining the writ petition by subsequent purchaser claiming lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013 – Even otherwise, order of High Court is not sustainable in view of the Constitutional Bench decision of Supreme Court in Indore
Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. wherein it was held that in case possession was taken but compensation not paid then there is no lapse – High Court order set aside. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed. Delhi Development Authority v. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 – relied on. Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783 – referred to. Case Law Reference referred to Para 2 followed Para 2.2 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8931
of 2022. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2017of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1202 of 2017. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
Ms. Malvika Kapila, Ms. Tanwangi Shukla, Advs. for the Respondents. 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 Petition (C) No. 1202 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard 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 “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants and so stated in the counter affidavit before the High Court that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 17.09.2008 and even the name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records. However, thereafter and despite the above, solely 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 and solely on the ground that the compensation was not paid or tendered in accordance with law, the High Court has declared that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that the original writ petitioner before the High Court was the subsequent purchaser and as observed and held by this Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., – Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022, subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser claiming lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013.
2.2 Even otherwise, on merits also, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. While passing the impugned judgment and order and declaring that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court 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.
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 [(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 “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 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 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. KARAMPAL
AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.] 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 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 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.”
3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and in view of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Devika Gujral Appeal allowed. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. KARAMPAL
AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]