Delhi Development Authority Versus Eminent Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi Development Authority Versus Eminent Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले


REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. of 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO. of 2023)
(@ DIARY NO.15374 of 2022)
Delhi Development Authority …Appellant
Versus
Eminent Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 11476 of
2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to
1
the land in question 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 “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development
Authority has preferred the present appeal.
3. We have heard Shri Nitin Mishra, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Gopal
Sankaranarayan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the contesting respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner at
length. We have also gone through and considered the
averments in the original writ petition as well as the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court.
3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court it appears that though it was the specific case on
behalf of the Authority and so stated in the counter that the
possession of the land in question was taken on 27.09.2012
and that the original writ petitioner was not the recorded
owner and the land absolutely vested in the Gaon Sabha,
thereafter the High Court has declared the acquisition with
respect to the land in question as deemed to have lapsed
2
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the ground that
the compensation has not been paid to the petitioner. While
passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has
heavily relied upon the earlier decision of this Court in the
case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.
3.2 However, it is required to be noted and even as observed
and recorded by the High Court the entire compensation with
respect to the land in question was deposited with the
Treasury. It is required to be noted that even in the writ
petition in paragraph 4 it was stated that in perusal of the
award no.09/2008-09, the representatives of the respondents
took the possession of the land of the petitioner on
27.09.2012. Even the possession proceeding was also
annexed with the writ petition. In light of the aforesaid facts,
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
declaring the land acquisition proceedings as deemed to have
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is required to be
considered.
3
3.3 As observed hereinabove and from the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court, the High Court
has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case
of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra). The
decision of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra)
has been subsequently specifically over-ruled by the
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others,
(2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the
Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as
under:-
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune
Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is
hereby overruled and all other decisions in which
Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has
been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree
Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353]
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 [(2018) 3 SCC 412], 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
4
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. 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
5
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).
6
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.”
4. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra) and applying the
same to the facts in the case on hand the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court declaring that the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed is unsustainable. Under the circumstances the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7
In view of the above and for the reason stated above
present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with
respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed is
hereby quashed and set aside.
The original writ petition preferred by the respondent –
original writ petitioner filed before the High Court stands
dismissed. No costs.
………………………………….J.
 [M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
 [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 16, 2023.
8

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

Atal Pension Yojana-(APY Chart) | अटल पेंशन योजना