Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2023 DIGILAW 191 (SC)

Land Acquisition Collector (NW) v. Vivek

2023-02-09

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, M.R.SHAH, SANJAY KAROL

body2023
ORDER : 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.5225 of 2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to only small portion of the land acquired 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 2013 Act”), the Land Acquisition Collector, Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal. 5. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector [LAC] before the High Court, it appears in para 4 & 5, which reads as under:- “4. That it is submitted that the lands of village Mangolpur Kalan were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 dated 24.10.1961 which was followed by Notification under section 6 of the said Act vide Notification dated 25.07.1966. That it is submitted that the then Land Acquisition Collector also passed an Award No.18/80-81 dated on 23.04.1980. 5. That it is submitted that the possession of the land bearing khasra no. 29/15 (5-07) of village- Mangolpur Kalan is in ownership right of Gram Sabha (Full Share). Possession of Khara no. 29/15 min (5-0) was duly taken on 01.05.1980 and possession of remaining area i.e. (0-7) was not taken due to built up. However, the awarded compensation with respect to the said land which was taken over, has been released to Gram Sabha through its Pradhan on 03.02.1982.” However, despite the above, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 , the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and has declared the acquisition with respect to the land ad-measuring (0-7) out of 5 bighas and 7 biswas is deemed to have lapsed. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), which been relied upon by the High Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order, has been subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129 . In Paragraphs 365 and 366, this Court has observed and held as under: “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association 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, 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 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. 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 land holdings 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. 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.” 6. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the matter is to be remanded to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and as per the law laid down by this Court in Indore Development Authority (supra) and/or any other decisions which may be cited. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal Succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on merits and on the basis of the materials available on record and in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Indore Development Authority (supra) and/or any other decisions, which may be cited. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 months from today. The present Appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 months from today. The present Appeal is, accordingly, allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. It goes without saying that all contentions/defences available to both the parties are kept open to be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Indore Development Authority (supra).