Delhi Development Authority Versus Batti & Ors.

Delhi Development Authority  Versus Batti & Ors. 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.____________ OF 2023

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.22803 of 2019)

Delhi Development Authority           …Appellant(s)

Versus

Batti & Ors.                            …Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.____________ OF 2023

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) D.No.30579 of 2021)

Government of NCT of  Delhi & Anr.          …Appellant(s)

Versus

Batti & Anr.                               …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1.       Leave granted. 

2. This order will dispose of two appeals arising out

of order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Division Bench of

the High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) No. 12135/2015.   One

appeal is preferred by Delhi Development Authority whereas

the another has been filed by Government of NCT of Delhi.

2

3. The service on respondent is complete.  However,

no one appeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing.

4. The facts of the cases are available on record.

Vide notification dated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short, ‘the Act’) large

chunk  of   the   land  measuring  about   3,500  Hectares  was

sought to be acquired for planned development of part of

Delhi.   It was followed by notification issued on June 20,

1990 under Section 6 of  the Act.   The Award bearing No.

13/92­93 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector

(DS), Delhi on 19.06.1992.

5. It is evident from the facts noticed by the High

Court   in   the   impugned   order   that   husband   of   the

respondent late Mange Ram was son of late Harkesh.   He

was father­in­law of the respondent no.1­ writ petitioner.  He

was claimed to be the recorded owner of 1/12th  share [01

bigha   and   19   biswas   and   03   biswansi]   in   land   bearing

Khasra Nos. 281/4(10­11), 282/4 (10­3) and 80(2­8) total

area measuring 23 bighas and 2 biswas, situated in the

revenue estate of Village Ghari Mandu, Shahdara, Delhi.

3

6. There   is   nothing   on   record   to   suggest   the

acquisition   in   question   was   ever   challenged   by   the

predecessor­in­interest of respondent no.1.  The writ petition

came to be filed in the year 2015 referring to Section 24(2) of

the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for

short “the 2013 Act”) claiming that the possession of land

having not been taken and the compensation not paid, the

acquisition has lapsed.

7. The   High   Court   noticed   the   fact   that   the

possession of the land had been taken by the State and

handed over to the Forest Department for development as

green belt, agriculture and water body as the land falls in ‘O’

Zone.  It was further pleaded that respondent no.1 was not

entitled to receive any compensation as the land, in fact,

vested in Gaon Sabha.

8. After considering the arguments raised by learned

counsel  appearing  for  the  parties,  the  High  Court,  while

relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal

Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki

&  Ors.  (2014)   3 SCC 183     held that the acquisition in

4

question has lapsed qua the land of the respondent no.1 as

the compensation therefor had not been tendered.  The issue

regarding entitlement of compensation to the respondent as

there was dispute regarding the title of the land, was kept

open.

9. The   arguments   raised   by   learned   counsel

appearing   for   the   appellant   are   that   in   view   of   the

Constitution   Bench   judgment   of   this   Court   in  Indore

Development   Authority   vs.   Manoharlal   and   Others

(2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby earlier judgment of this Court in

Pune  Municipal  Corporation  &  Anr.’s  case   (supra) was

overruled the order passed by the High  Court is to be set

aside.     It   was   opined   by   the   Constitution   Bench   that

compliance to either of the two conditions i.e. taking over of

possession of the land or payment of compensation, is good

enough to sustain the acquisition.  In the case in hand, from

the facts admitted on record it is evident that the possession

of the land was taken after the acquisition was complete.

There   was   no   question   of   payment   of   compensation   to

predecessor in interest of the  respondent no.1 as admittedly

there was dispute regarding  title of the land.  The land is

5

recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha.  Even the High Court

in the impugned order had kept the question of title open.  

10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 

11.   There is no dispute on the fact that the judgment

of   this   Court   in  Pune   Municipal   Corporation   and

Another’s  case (supra), was relied upon by the High Court

to hold that the acquisition in question had lapsed. It was

overruled by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court

in the Indore Development Authority’s case (supra).  Para

362 thereof is extracted below:

“362.  Resultantly, the decision rendered

in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (supra)

is hereby overruled and all other decisions in

which   Pune   Municipal   Corporation   (supra)

has been followed, are also overruled.”

12. Various questions required to be considered by

the Constitution Bench were answered in para 366 of the

judgment. The same read as under: 

“366. In   view   of   the   aforesaid

discussion,   we   answer   the   questions   as

under:

6

366.1. Under   the   provisions   of   Section

24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on

1­1­2014, 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

7

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 non­deposit 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.   Non­deposit   of

compensation (in court) does not result in the

lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case

of non­deposit 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

8

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 non­payment 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).

366.8. The   provisions   of   Section   24(2)

providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings

are applicable in case authorities have failed

9

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 1­1­2014. 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. 1­1­2014. It

does not revive stale and time­barred 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.”

13. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the

High Court shows that the Writ Petition was allowed relying

upon   the   judgement   of   this   Court   in  Pune   Municipal

Corporation and Another’s  case (supra).  The case set by

10

the writ petitioner was that late Harkesh was the recorded

owner of the land as noticed in para 2 of the judgment.  The

writ petitioner is his daughter­in­law.  Even the husband of

the writ petitioner had expired when the writ petition was

filed.     It   was   claimed   that   late   Harkesh   was   having

bhoomidari rights, however in terms of the stand taken by

the   appellant,   no   surviving   membership   was   placed   on

record.     Definite   and   undisputed   stand   taken   by   the

respondent before the High Court was that the possession of

the land was taken after the award was announced and the

same   was   handed   over   to   the   Forest   Department   for

development as green belt, agriculture and water body as

the land falls in ‘O’ Zone.  

14. Initially, the stand sought to be taken by the writ

petitioner   before   the   High   Court   was   that   the   physical

possession of the land had not been taken, however, the

same was given up.   The only argument pressed was that

the compensation be paid as per the provisions of the 2013

Act.     The   Writ   Petition   was   allowed   relying   upon   the

judgment of this Court in  Pune   Municipal   Corporation

and   Another’s  case   (supra).     The   High   Court   had   also

11

noticed the fact that there was dispute about title of the

property which as per the stand taken by both the parties

was kept open.   Meaning thereby, even the compensation

could not have been paid to the predecessor interest of the

respondent/ writ petitioner.  There is nothing on record to

suggest as to what action was taken by the person who

claimed interest in the property to seek compensation, in

case   land   owned   by   him   was   acquired   more   than   two

decades   back   and   no   compensation   paid.   The   litigation

started only with enactment of Act of 2013 

15. For   the   reasons   recorded   above,   the   present

appeal deserves to be allowed as the ingredients of Section

24(2) of 2013 Act as interpreted by this Court in  Indore

Development   Authority   vs.   Manoharlal   and   Others’s

case (supra) are not satisfied in the case in hand.   There

cannot be lapsing of acquisition of land.  

16. The   appeals   are,   accordingly,   allowed  and   the

impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.  The

writ   petition   filed   by  the   respondents  in   the   High   Court

stands dismissed. 

12

……………………J.

                                                         [Abhay S. Oka]

……….……………J.

     [Rajesh Bindal]

New Delhi 

22.03.2023.