DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. EMINENT MARKETING PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In view of the above and for the reason stated above presentappeal is allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise tonew cause of action to question the legality of concludedproceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceedingpending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014.It does not revive stale…
Judgment
ABCDEFGH1016SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Brajesh Kumar, Prashant Rawat, TathagatSharma, Atul Dong, Ranjan Chorasia, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. forthe Appellant. Gopal Sankaranarayan, Sr. Adv., Brijesh C, Deepayan Mandal, Prins Kumar, Mridul Bansal, Naman Varma, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered byM. R. SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at NewDelhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 11476 of 2016 by which the High Courthas allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisitionwith 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 (hereinafterreferred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority haspreferred the present appeal.
We have heard Shri Nitin Mishra, learned counsel appearingon behalf of the appellant and Shri Gopal Sankaranarayan, learned SeniorAdvocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent no.1 – originalwrit petitioner at length. We have also gone through and considered theaverments in the original writ petition as well as the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court.3.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt it appears that though it was the specific case on behalf of the Authority and so stated in the counter that the possession of the land inquestion was taken on 27.09.2012 and that the original writ petitionerwas not the recorded owner and the land absolutely vested in the GaonSabha, thereafter the High Court has declared the acquisition with respectto the land in question as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) ofthe Act, 2013 solely on the ground that the compensation has not beenpaid to the petitioner.
While passing the impugned judgment and orderthe High Court has heavily relied upon the earlier decision of this Courtin the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183. ABCDEFGH10173.2 However, it is required to be noted and even as observed andrecorded by the High Court the entire compensation with respect to theland in question was deposited with the Treasury. It is required to benoted that even in the writ petition in paragraph 4 it was stated that inperusal of the award no.09/2008-09, the representatives of therespondents took the possession of the land of the petitioner on 27.09.2012.Even the possession proceeding was also annexed with the writ petition. In light of the aforesaid facts, the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court declaring the land acquisition proceedings as deemedto have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is required to beconsidered.3.3 As observed hereinabove and from the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court, the High Court has heavily reliedupon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr.
(supra). The decision of Pune MunicipalCorporation and Anr. (supra) has been subsequently specifically over-ruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8SCC 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 MunicipalCorpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,(2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions inwhich Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v.Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has beenfollowed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji NagarResidential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. Stateof T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying downgood law, is overruled and other decisions following the same arealso 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 decisiontoo cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the presentjudgment.366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer thequestions as under:DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. EMINENTMARKETING PVT. LTD. & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.] ABCDEFGH1018SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case theaward is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement ofthe 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation hasto be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.366.2. In case the award has been passed within thewindow period of five years excluding the period covered by aninterim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue asprovided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894Act as if it has not been repealed.366.3.
The word “or” used in Section 24(2) betweenpossession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”.The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction ofauthorities for five years or more prior to commencement of thesaid Act, the possession of land has not been taken norcompensation has been paid. In other words, in case possessionhas been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is nolapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession hasnot been taken then there is no lapse.366.
The expression “paid” in the main part of Section24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensationin court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the provisoto Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect tomajority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as onthe date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with theprovisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interestunder Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit ofcompensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of landacquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect tothe majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation underthe 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date ofnotification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.366.
In case a person has been tendered thecompensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, itis not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section ABCDEFGH101924(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 acceptcompensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.366.
The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is tobe treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).366.
The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Actand as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquestreport/memorandum. Once award has been passed on takingpossession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapseunder Section 24(2).366.
The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for adeemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authoritieshave failed due to their inaction to take possession and paycompensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act cameinto force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with theauthority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence ofinterim orders passed by court has to be excluded in thecomputation of five years.366.
Operative part
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise tonew cause of action to question the legality of concludedproceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceedingpending 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 reopenconcluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question thelegality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings ormode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of courtto invalidate acquisition.” 4. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority (supra) and applying the same to the facts in thecase on hand the impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question isdeemed to have lapsed is unsustainable. Under the circumstances theDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. EMINENTMARKETING PVT. LTD. & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.] ABCDEFGH1020SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to bequashed and set aside. In view of the above and for the reason stated above presentappeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the HighCourt declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question isdeemed to have lapsed is hereby quashed and set aside. The original writ petition preferred by the respondent – originalwrit petitioner filed before the High Court stands dismissed. No costs. Ankit GyanAppeal allowed. (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above and for the reason stated above presentappeal is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 31.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.