Land and Building Department and Anr Versus Manish Sethi and Ors

Land and Building Department and Anr Versus  Manish Sethi and Ors

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 945 OF 2023

(@ SLP (C) No. 3119 of 2023)

(@ Diary No. 28000 of 2022)

Land and Building Department and Anr. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Manish Sethi and 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. 6060 of 2014 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

Land and Building Department and the Land Acquisition Collector have

preferred the present appeal.

1

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

it is apparent that 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 Act, 2013 relying

upon the 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 and on the ground that the compensation

has not been tendered and/or paid to the landowners. However, it is

required to be noted that before the High Court, it was the specific case

on behalf of the appellant that the possession of the land in question

was taken on 28.03.2007.

3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal

Corporation and Anr. (supra) 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. 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

2

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 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

3

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 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.

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. In view of the above and considering the stand taken by the

appellant before the High Court that the possession of the disputed land

in question was taken on 28.03.2007 and applying the law laid down by

this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is

unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and

accordingly the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

is quashed and set aside. There shall not be any deemed lapse under

Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as held by the High Court.

5

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

………………………………….J.

 [M.R. SHAH]

………………………………….J.

 [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

FEBRUARY 17, 2023. [SANJAY KAROL]

6