Delhi Development Authority Versus Anita Singh & Ors.
Delhi Development Authority Versus Anita Singh & Ors.
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 2994 of 2023
Delhi Development Authority … Appellant
Versus
Anita Singh & Ors. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. The order dated 22.08.2017 passed by the High
Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.5339/2016 has been
impugned before this Court. Vide aforesaid order, the Writ
Petition filed by the Respondent no.1 invoking Section 24(2) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) was allowed and it
was opined that acquisition in question has lapsed.
Page 1 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
2. The facts of the case as are available on record are
that the Respondent no.1 had filed a writ petition stating that
she had purchased 100 square yards bearing Khasra
No.140/9/1 situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Dichaun
Kalan Delhi by virtue of sale deed dated 04.03.2005. The said
land was subject matter of acquisition. A Notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred
to as “the 1894 Act”) was issued on 07.04.2006 which was
followed by a Notification under Section 6 of the 1894 on
04.04.2007. The Award was announced by the Land Acquisition
Collector on 30.12.2008 under Section 11 of the 1894 Act.
3. The writ petition was filed in the year 2016 invoking
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that neither the
compensation has been paid to the Respondent no.1 nor the
possession of the land had been taken by the acquiring
authority, hence, the acquisition lapsed.
4. The stand taken by the Land Acquisition Collector in
the counter affidavit filed before the High Court was that the
possession of the acquired land was taken on 10.02.2012
except 3 biswas of land on which certain structure had been
build up. The Respondent no.1 not being the recorded owner of
Page 2 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
land, the compensation for the land, including the cases where
there was dispute regarding ownership, was deposited with the
Reference Court on 27.12.2013.
5. The High Court found that one of the conditions laid
down in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having not been
complied with regarding payment of compensation to the
Respondent no.1, the acquisition has lapsed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and
Others
1
, whereby the earlier judgment of this Court in Pune
Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki & Ors.
2
was overruled. The order passed by the High Court cannot be
legally sustained. It was opined by the Constitution Bench that
compliance of either of the two conditions i.e. taking over of
possession of the land or payment of compensation is sufficient
to sustain the acquisition. In the case in hand, it is the
admitted case of the Respondent no.1 that she was not the
recorded owner of the land though she claimed that the plot in
question was purchased by her vide sale deed dated
1 (2020) 8 SCC 129
2 (2014) 3 SCC 183
Page 3 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
04.03.2005. The land is being utilized by the Government for
construction of 100 Meter wide Road, under Planned
Development of Delhi. The land is required for UER-II, which is
connecting NH-1, NH-10 and NH-8 further connecting it to
NH-2. The said project is of great public importance and has to
be completed before 15 August 2023 in light of Amrit Mahotsav
(75 years of Independence). This will help in de-congestion of
Delhi and provide better connectivity to the public. As there
was dispute regarding ownership, the amount of compensation
was deposited with the Reference Court on 27.12.2013. The
same will amount to tendering the compensation as in case of
dispute of ownerships it could not have been paid to anyone.
Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
Respondent no.1 herself had filed application on 06.05.2009
before the Land Acquisition Collector for release of
compensation. She clearly stated therein that though she is
not the recorded owner of the land, as she had purchased the
same through general power of attorney, the compensation
should not be paid to the recorded owner of the plot. This was
admission on the part of the Respondent no.1 that she had
Page 4 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
knowledge about acquisition of land. The order passed by the
High Court is liable to be set aside.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the paper books.
8. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore
Development Authority's case (supra) has opined that
satisfaction of either of the conditions namely either taking
possession of the acquired land or payment of compensation to
the landowners would be sufficient to save the acquisition from
being lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Various
questions posed before the Constitution Bench of this Court
were also answered. Relevant para-nos. 362 and 366 are
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. …
...
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-
Page 5 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
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.
(emphasis supplied)
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
Page 6 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
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 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
Page 7 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
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 1-1-2014. The period of
subsistence of interim orders passed by court
has to be excluded in the computation of five
years.
Page 8 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
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.”
9. It is the admitted case of Respondent no.1 that she
was not the recorded owner of the land at the time of issuance
of Notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act or even at the time
of the passing of the Award. This is even mentioned in the
application dated 06.05.2009 filed by her to the Land
Acquisition Collector for release of compensation. This
establishes knowledge of acquisition and passing of award. On
account of fact that there was dispute of ownership, the
amount of compensation was deposited by the Land Acquisition
Collector with the Reference Court under Section 30/31 of the
1894 Act. On the issue of deposit of compensation with the
Reference Court, the position of law has been settled in Indore
Page 9 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
Development Authority’s case (supra). Paras 117, 118 and
119 thereof, which are extracted below:
“117. Payment of compensation under
the 1894 Act is provided for by Section 31 of the
Act, which is to be after passing of the award
under Section 11. The exception, is in case of
urgency under Section 17, is where it has to be
tendered before taking possession. Once an
award has been passed, the Collector is bound to
tender the payment of compensation to the
persons interested entitled to it, as found in the
award and shall pay it to them unless
“prevented” by the contingencies mentioned in
sub-section (2) of Section 31. Section 31(3)
contains a non obstante clause which authorises
the Collector with the sanction of the appropriate
Government, in the interest of the majority, by
the grant of other lands in exchange, the
remission of land revenue on other lands or in
such other way as may be equitable.
118. Section 31(1) enacts that the Collector
has to tender payment of the compensation
awarded by him to the persons interested
entitled thereto according to the award and shall
pay such amount to a person interested in the
land, unless he (the Collector) is prevented from
Page 10 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
doing so, for any of the three contingencies
provided by sub-section (2). Section 31(2)
provides for deposit of compensation in court in
case the State is prevented from making
payment in the event of:
(i) refusal to receive it;
(ii) if there be no person competent to
alienate the land;
(iii) if there is any dispute as to the title to
receive the compensation; or
(iv) if there is dispute as to the
apportionment.
In such exigencies, the Collector shall deposit the
amount of the compensation in the court to which
a reference under Section 18 would be submitted.
119. Section 34 deals with a situation where
any of the obligations under Section 31 is not
fulfilled i.e. when the amount of compensation is
not paid or deposited on or before taking
possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the
amount awarded with interest thereon @ 9% p.a.
from the time of so taking possession until it shall
have been so paid or deposited; and after one
year from the date on which possession is taken,
interest payable shall be @ 15% p.a. The scheme
of the 1894 Act clearly makes it out that when
the award is passed under Section 11, thereafter
possession is taken as provided under Section 16,
land vests in the State Government. Under
Page 11 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
Section 12(2), a notice of the award has to be
issued by the Collector. Taking possession is not
dependent upon payment. Payment has to be
tendered under Section 31 unless the Collector is
“prevented from making payment”, as provided
under Section 31(2). In case of failure under
Section 31(1) or 31(3), also Collector is not
precluded from making payment, but it carries
interest under Section 34 @ 9% for the first year
from the date it ought to have been paid or
deposited and thereafter @ 15%. Thus, once land
has been vested in the State under Section 16, in
case of failure to pay the compensation under
Section 31(1) or to deposit under Section 31(2),
compensation has to be paid along with interest,
and due to non-compliance of Section 31, there is
no lapse of acquisition. The same spirit has been
carried forward in the 2013 Act by providing in
Section 24(2). Once possession has been taken
though the payment has not been made, the
compensation has to be paid along with interest
as envisaged under Section 34, and in a case,
payment has been made, possession has not
been taken, there is no lapse under Section
24(2). In a case where possession has been taken
under the 1894 Act as provided by Section 16 or
17(1) the land vests absolutely in the State, free
from all encumbrances, if compensation is not
Page 12 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
paid, there is no divesting there will be no lapse
as compensation carries interest @ 9% or @ 15%
as envisaged under Section 34 of the 1894 Act.
The proviso to Section 24(2) makes some
wholesome provision in case the amount has not
been deposited with respect to majority of
landholdings, in such an event, not only those
persons but all the beneficiaries, though for
minority of holding compensation has been paid,
shall be entitled to higher compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.
The expression used is “all beneficiaries specified
in the notification for acquisition under Section 4
of the said Land Acquisition Act” i.e. the 1894
Act, means that the persons who are to be paid
higher compensation are those who have been
recorded as beneficiaries as on the date of
notification under Section 4. The proviso gives
effect to, and furthers the principle that under the
1894 Act, the purchases made after issuance of
notification under Section 4 are void. As such, the
benefit of higher compensation under the proviso
to Section 24(2) is intended to be given to the
beneficiaries mentioned in the notification under
Section 4 of the 1894 Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
Page 13 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
10. Further, with reference to Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act, the position is summed up in para 208 of Indore
Development Authority’s case (supra), which is
extracted below:
“208. … … … In our opinion, when
amount has been tendered, the obligation has
been fulfilled by the Collector. Landowners cannot
be forced to receive it. In case a person has not
accepted the amount wants to take the
advantage of non-payment, though the amount
has remained (sic unpaid) due to his own act. It is
not open to him to contend that the amount has
not been paid to him, as such, there should be
lapse of the proceedings. Even in a case when
offer for payment has been made but not
deposited, liability to pay amount along with
interest subsist and if not deposited for majority
of holding, for that adequate provisions have
been given in the proviso also to Section 24(2).
The scheme of the 2013 Act in Sections 77 and
80 is also the same as that provided in Sections
31 and 34 of the 1894 Act.”
(emphasis supplied)
11. The issue as to what is meant by "possession of the
land by the State after its acquisition" has also been considered
Page 14 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
in Indore Development Authority’s case (supra). It is opined
therein that after the acquisition of land and passing of award,
the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The
vesting of land with the State is with possession. Any person
retaining the possession thereafter has to be treated
trespasser. When large chunk of land is acquired, the State is
not supposed to put some person or police force to retain the
possession and start cultivating on the land till it is utilized. The
Government is also not supposed to start residing or physically
occupying the same once process of the acquisition is
complete. If after the process of acquisition is complete and
land vest in the State free from all encumbrances with
possession, any person retaining the land or any re-entry made
by any person is nothing else but trespass on the State land.
Relevant paragraphs 244, 245 and 256 are extracted below:
"244. Section 16 of the Act of 1894
provided that possession of land may be taken
by the State Government after passing of an
award and thereupon land vest free from all
encumbrances in the State Government. Similar
are the provisions made in the case of urgency
in Section 17(1). The word "possession" has
been used in the Act of 1894, whereas in Section
Page 15 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
24(2) of Act of 2013, the expression "physical
possession" is used. It is submitted that drawing
of panchnama for taking over the possession is
not enough when the actual physical possession
remained with the landowner and Section 24(2)
requires actual physical possession to be taken,
not the possession in any other form. When the
State has acquired the land and award has been
passed, land vests in the State Government free
from all encumbrances. The act of vesting of the
land in the State is with possession, any person
retaining the possession, thereafter, has to be
treated as trespasser and has no right to
possess the land which vests in the State free
from all encumbrances.
245. The question which arises whether
there is any difference between taking
possession under the Act of 1894 and the
expression "physical possession" used in Section
24(2). As a matter of fact, what was
contemplated under the Act of 1894, by taking
the possession meant only physical possession
of the land. Taking over the possession under
the Act of 2013 always amounted to taking over
physical possession of the land. When the State
Government acquires land and drawns up a
memorandum of taking possession, that
Page 16 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
amounts to taking the physical possession of the
land. On the large chunk of property or
otherwise which is acquired, the Government is
not supposed to put some other person or the
police force in possession to retain it and start
cultivating it till the land is used by it for the
purpose for which it has been acquired. The
Government is not supposed to start residing or
to physically occupy it once possession has been
taken by drawing the inquest proceedings for
obtaining possession thereof. Thereafter, if any
further retaining of land or any re-entry is made
on the land or someone starts cultivation on the
open land or starts residing in the outhouse,
etc., is deemed to be the trespasser on land
which in possession of the State. The possession
of trespasser always inures for the benefit of the
real owner that is the State Government in the
case.
xxxx
256. Thus, it is apparent that vesting
is with possession and the statute has provided
under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act of 1894 that
once possession is taken, absolute vesting
occurred. It is an indefeasible right and vesting
is with possession thereafter. The vesting
specified under Section 16, takes place after
various steps, such as, notification under Section
Page 17 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
4, declaration under Section 6, notice under
Section 9, award under Section 11 and then
possession. The statutory provision of vesting of
property absolutely free from all encumbrances
has to be accorded full effect. Not only the
possession vests in the State but all other
encumbrances are also removed forthwith. The
title of the landholder ceases and the state
becomes the absolute owner and in possession
of the property. Thereafter there is no control of
the landowner over the property. He cannot
have any animus to take the property and to
control it. Even if he has retained the possession
or otherwise trespassed upon it after possession
has been taken by the State, he is a trespasser
and such possession of trespasser enures for his
benefit and on behalf of the owner."
(emphasis supplied)
12. As per the stand taken by the appellant, the land in
question is being utilised for UER-II, which is connecting NH-1,
NH-10 and NH-8 further connecting it to NH-2. The said project
is of great public importance and has to be completed before
15.08.2023 in light of Amrit Mahotsav (75 years of
Independence). This will help in de-congestion of Delhi.
Page 18 of 19
Civil Appeal No.2994/2023
13. From the facts as are available on record, it is evident
that Respondent no.1 was admittedly not the recorded owner of
the land at time of acquisition thereof or pronouncement of
Award by the Land Acquisition Collector. The amount of
compensation was deposited with the Reference Court in term
of Section 30/31 of the 1894 Act as the same could not be paid
to Respondent no.1. Hence, one of the conditions being
satisfied, in our view the order passed by the High Court cannot
be legally sustained whereby the acquisition has been held to
have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
14. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned
order passed by the High Court is set aside. The Writ Petition
filed by the Respondent no.1 in the High Court is dismissed.
______________, J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
______________, J.
(Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi
May 01, 2023.
//vk-ss//
Page 19 of 19
Comments
Post a Comment