Delhi Development Authority Versus Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.

Delhi Development Authority Versus Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7960 OF 2022

Delhi Development Authority …Appellant(s)

Versus

Krishan Lal Arora & Ors. …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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. 10820 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ

petition preferred by the original landowner – original writ petitioner -

respondent herein, and has held and declared that the acquisition with

respect to the land in question has 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 Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present

appeal.

1

2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,

it is seen that though the possession of the land in question was already

taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector / L& B Department,

Government of NCT of Delhi on 02.09.2006, the acquisition is ordered to

be lapsed solely on the ground that the compensation has not been paid

to the landowner. According to the High Court, as the compensation has

not been paid to the original writ petitioner – original landowner, Section

24(2) of the Act, 2013 shall be attracted and therefore the acquisition is

deemed to have been lapsed. The view taken by the High Court is just

contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of

Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8

SCC 129 and in paragraph 366, it is observed and held by this Court 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, 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.

2

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 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 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.

3

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, present

appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court ordering lapse of the acquisition with respect to the land in

question under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed and set

4

aside. Consequently, the original writ petition preferred by the original

writ petitioner stands dismissed.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

………………………………….J.

 [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

NOVEMBER 02, 2022. [M.M. SUNDRESH]

5