Delhi Development Authority Versus Shiv Kumar and others

Delhi Development Authority  Versus Shiv Kumar and others 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6885 OF 2022
Delhi Development Authority …Appellant
Versus
Shiv Kumar and others …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6886 OF 2022
Government of NCT of Delhi …Appellant
Versus
Shiv Kumar and others …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6888 OF 2022
Government of NCT of Delhi & Another …Appellants
Versus
Ombir Singh Sethi and others …Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6887 OF 2022
Government of NCT of Delhi …Appellant
Versus
Vikas and others …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
1
M.R. SHAH, J.
Civil Appeal Nos.6885/2022 and 6886/2022
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 24.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi
at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5048/2016, the Delhi
Development Authority (for short, ‘DDA’) and Government of NCT of
Delhi have preferred the present appeals. By the impugned judgment
and order, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by
the respondents herein and has declared that the acquisition with
respect to the land in question has lapsed, in exercise of powers 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’).
Civil Appeal No. 6888/2022
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4760 of 2016, by which the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein –
original writ petitioners and has declared that the acquisition with respect
2
to the land in question has lapsed, in exercise of powers under Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act, the Government of NCT of Delhi through its
Secretary has preferred the present appeal.
Civil Appeal No. 6887/2022
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 10.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 19 of 2018, by which the High Court has
allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein –
original writ petitioners and has declared that the acquisition with respect
to the land in question has lapsed, in exercise of powers under Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act, the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the
present appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
DDA/Government of NCT of Delhi. None has appeared on behalf of the
original writ petitioners.
5. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 has held in
paragraph 366 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,
3
there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined
under the provision 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 Acct, 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 not 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).
4
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. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court
are just contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra).
7. In view of the above, the impugned judgment(s) and order(s)
passed by the High Court are unsustainable and the same deserve to be
quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside.
8. The present appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.
9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………J.
SEPTEMBER 26, 2022. [KRISHNA MURARI]
5

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