Govt. of NCT of Delhi Versus Sushil Kumar Gupta & Ors

Govt. of NCT of Delhi Versus Sushil Kumar Gupta & Ors

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 352 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO. 1488 OF 2023)
(@ DIARY NO. 25267 OF 2022)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi …Appellant(s)
Versus
Sushil Kumar Gupta & 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 dated 30.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1399 of 2014, by which, the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the
land acquisition proceedings in respect of 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 Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the
present appeal.
1
2. It is true that there is a huge delay in preferring the appeal which is
vehemently opposed by Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent(s) –
original writ petitioner, however, taking into consideration the other
similar orders passed by different benches in condoning such
delay in preferring the appeal challenging the order(s) passed by
the very High Court declaring that the acquisition is lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and taking into consideration the
fact that while passing the impugned judgment and order the High
Court has relied upon and/or followed the earlier decision of this
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3
SCC 183 which has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of
this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.
Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and the
observations made in paragraph 365 which is reproduced
hereinbelow, in which it is observed that all the decisions in which
the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra)
have been relied upon stand overruled, we condone the delay and
consider the appeal on merits.
2
3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court and even as observed by the High Court in the
impugned judgment and order, as such the possession of the land
in question was taken over as far as back on 12.03.1981.
However, thereafter relying upon the decision of this Court in the
case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) on the ground that
the compensation with respect to the land in question was not
paid, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has
declared that the acquisition in respect of the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
4. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) relied upon by the High Court has been
overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra). In paragraphs 365 and
366, it is 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
3
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
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.
4
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
5
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.”
5. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court for the purpose of
lapsing the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the
twin conditions namely, not taking the possession and not paying
the compensation have to be satisfied and if one of the conditions
is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse of the acquisition.
Therefore, once the possession of the land in question was taken
6
over on 12.03.1981 then applying the law laid down by this Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) the
acquisition of the land in question is not deemed to have lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the
writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner before the High
Court stands dismissed.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
 [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2023. [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
7

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