Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authorityand Anr. vs Ram Newaj and others case

Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authorityand Anr. vs Ram Newaj and others case

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2916 OF 2022
Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authorityand Anr.    ..Appellants
Versus
Ram Newaj and others          ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the High Court
of   Judicature   at   Allahabad,   Lucknow   Bench,   Lucknow   in
Miscellaneous Bench No.3962 of 2005 by which the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents
herein   –   original   writ   petitioners   and   has   held   that   the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the three plots in question
pertaining to the original writ petitioners stand lapsed under subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
1
Transparency   in   Land   Acquisition,   Rehabilitation   and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’) ,
the Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority and another has
preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.   We have perused the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court.
3. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has
held that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the three
plots  in  question  shall  stand lapsed under sub­section (2) of
Section 24 of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that, though the
deposit of the compensation was made in the Treasury, but the
same   was   not   deposited   in   the   Court   and   consequently   the
payment of compensation of the amount was not made to the
land owners.  The High Court has relied upon the decision of this
Court   in   the   case   of  Delhi   Development   Authority   versus
Sukhbir  Singh  and  others,   (2016)  16  SCC  258.   However, in
view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others,
(2020) 8 SCC 129, the impugned judgment and order passed by
2
the   High   Court   is   unsustainable.     In   paragraph   366   of   the
aforesaid judgment this Court 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 1­1­2014, 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 non­deposit is provided in the proviso to Section
3
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.   Non­deposit   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
non­payment   or   non­deposit   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
4
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).
366.9. 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. 1­1­2014. It does not revive stale and timebarred   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.
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   1­1­2014.   The
period of subsistence of interim orders passed by
court has to be excluded in the computation of five
years.”
3.1 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra) and in the present case
as the amount of compensation was deposited with the Treasury
and even the possession was already taken over on 07.09.2005,
5
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
holding that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the
lands   in   question   are  deemed  to   have  lapsed  deserves  to   be
quashed and set aside.
4. In view of the above discussion 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.
Consequently,   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the   original   writ
petitioner before the High Court stands dismissed.  
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs. 
…………………………………J.
                (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
May 20, 2022.
6

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर