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