National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. Versus Subhash Chander Khatri & Ors.

National Capital Territory of  Delhi & Ors.  Versus Subhash Chander Khatri & Ors.  

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1987 OF 2023
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6169 of 2023)
(@ Diary No.37735 of 2022)
National Capital Territory of 
Delhi & Ors.         …Appellant(s)
Versus
Subhash Chander Khatri & 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   15.01.2018
passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page 1 of 8
Writ Petition (C) No.12143 of 2015 by which the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition and has
declared   that   the   acquisition   with   respect   to   the
subject land 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”),   however   the   High   Court   has
observed and held that the original writ petitioner
would be entitled to compensation under the Act,
2013, the Land and Building Department of the NCT
of   Delhi   and   others   have   preferred   the   present
appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court, it appears that before the High
Court   it   was   the   specific   case   on   behalf   of   the
Department that the possession of the subject land
has been taken.   However, thereafter 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
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page 2 of 8
has not been paid, the High Court has allowed the
writ petition and has declared that the acquisition
proceedings   with   respect   to   the   subject   land   are
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013.   However, as the land in question was
already put to use by the beneficiary Department,
the High Court has directed that the original writ
petitioner   shall   be   entitled   to   the   compensation
under the New Act.
2.1 Thus, even the High Court has accepted that
the possession of the land in question was already
taken over and even the land was put to use by the
Department.   Even the original writ petitioner also
admitted the same and therefore prayed that he be
paid the compensation under the Act, 2013.   Once
the possession of the subject land was taken over
and in fact was put to use prior to 2013 Act came
into force, as per the law laid down by this Court in
the   case   of  Indore   Development   Authority   Vs.
Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129, there shall
not   be   any   deemed   lapse   of   acquisition.   In
paragraph 366 it is observed and held as under:­
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page 3 of 8
“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   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 has
been paid, possession has not been taken
then there is no lapse.
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page 4 of 8
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 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
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page 5 of 8
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   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.   1­1­
2014.   It   does   not   revive   stale   and   timeCivil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page 6 of 8
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.”
3. In view of the above and once there shall be no
deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013, the original writ petitioner shall not
be   entitled   to   the   compensation   as   per   the   Act,
2013.     Under   the   circumstances   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable.  
5. 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.   The original  writ
petition   filed   by   the   respondent   no.1   herein   filed
before the High Court stands dismissed accordingly.
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page 7 of 8
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However,
in the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.  
Pending   applications,   if   any,   also   stand
disposed of.        
………………………………….J.
                         [M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
                         [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;      
APRIL 10, 2023.               
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page 8 of 8

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