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