Delhi Development Authority Versus Rajender Singh & Ors

Delhi Development Authority Versus Rajender Singh & Ors 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1301 OF 2023

 (@ SLP (C) NO. 3854 OF 2023)

(@ DIARY NO. 7205 OF 2022)

Delhi Development Authority …Appellant(s)

Versus

Rajender Singh & 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. 3561 of 2015, by which, the High Court has

allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the

acquisition with respect to 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.

1

2. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties and having gone through the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court and even the

counter affidavit filed before the High Court by the Delhi

Development Authority wherein it was the specific case on behalf

of the respondent therein that the possession of lands in question

was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department

on 23.09.1981 and the compensation with respect to the said

lands was sent in RD due to dispute.

3. However, thereafter despite the above and relying 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, the High Court has declared that the

acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to

have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 solely on the

ground that the compensation was not paid in the manner known

to law to the land owners.

3.1 The view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the law laid

down by this Court in the case of Indore Development

Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In

2

paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of 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 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

3

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.”

4. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore

Development Authority (supra) for deemed lapse under

Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, namely, (i) the

possession is not taken and (ii) the compensation is not

tendered/paid are to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is

not satisfied there shall not be any lapse or deemed lapse under

the Act, 2013.

5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore

Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and

5

order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same

deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly

quashed and set aside. There shall be no deemed lapse of the

acquisition with respect to the lands in question.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

………………………………….J.

 [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

FEBRUARY 24, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

6