GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & Ors. v. JAGJIT SINGH & Ors.

Amrendra Sharan, Rachana Srivastava, Utkarsh Sharma, F Viresh B. Saharya, V. B. Saharya (For Saharya & Co.) for the Appellants. Ravinder Sethi, Rajeev Ghawana, Gautam Narayan, E. C. Agrawala for the Respondents. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Any determination under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and H GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. JAGJIT SINGH [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 694 ResettlementAct, 2013, must proceed sequentially. First, the A factum of an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition ···Act, 1894, must be clearly established. The said Award must predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., 01.01.2014., by at least five years (or more), ie., the Award must have been passed on or before 01.01.2009. This having been B established, if possession is found to not have been taken, or compensation n9t paid, then the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the appropriate Government, if it so. chooses, may reinitiate acquisition C proceedings in respect of the same land, but under the 2013 Act's regime.

#2. Each and . every deeming operation under Section 24(2) requires unambiguously and unvaryingly that a factual conclusion D be drawn about the passing of the Award under Section 11, of the 1894 Act, on or before 01.01.2009; further, the absence of compensation having been paid or the absence of possession having been taken by the acquirer, either of these, must be a proven point of fact, as a threshold requirement attracting the lapse. E

#3. This Court has in a number of decisions including Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183, Union of India vs. Shiv Raj (2014) 6 SCC 564 and Simla Devi VS. State of Haryana (2014) 6 sec 583, clarified F the manner in which the new provision is to be interpreted viz.' that the acquisition lapses.

#4. It. has been contended in other Appeals before this Court that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land G Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ~ettlement Ordinance, 2014, issued on 31st December, 2014, clarifies that if possession of the acquired land has not been taken owing to interim Orders passed in this regard the acquisition may be protected and insulated from the purpose and intendment of Section 24 of the H 695 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 2 S.C.R. A 2013Act. This Court has now clarified in Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4283 of 2011 decided on 12.01.2015] that the Ordinance shall have prospective operation only. This Court therein held as under: B c "The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the abovesaid sub-Section without giving retrospective effect to the same." The legal position has been subsequently reiterated by this Court in Arvind Bansal v. State of Haryana (Civil Appeal Nos.417-418 of 2015 decided on 13.01.2015) and Karnail D Kaur v. State of Punjab [Civil Appeal No. 7 424 of 2013 decided on 22.01.2015]. We are in respectful agreement with all these decisions. In the event that there is no ambiguity that (a) the Award is over five years old and (b) that compensation has not been paid or (c) that possession of the land has not been taken, the acquisition is liable to be quashed. In Rajiv Chowdhrie HUF v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No.8786 of 2013, decided on 06.02.2015], noting that the physical possession of the land had nc.t,. been taken by the Respondents, nor F compensation paid by the Respondents to the Appellant in respect whereof the Award was passed on 6.08.2007, the acquisition proceedings had been declared as having lapsed. The same position was arrived at in Rajiv Chowdhrie HUF v. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.8785 of 2013 decided on E G 10.12.2014 by a different Bench of this Court. 5 . These Appeals assail one Judgment and an Order [passed in light of that Judgment] of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which had allowed the Writ Petitions before it, and H declared that the acquisitions had lapsed for the reason that GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI v. JAGJIT SINGH [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 696 the possession had not been taken and compensation, too, A not paid. This is sufficient ground for granting the protection envisaged by Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

#6. The Appeals are dismissed in the above terms. Kalpana K. Tripathy dismissed. B Appeals c D E F G H