SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 412

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Pawan Kumar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Civil) No. 26533 of 2015)
Decided on : 06-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Advocate
For the Respondent:Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya, M/S. Saharya & Co., Advocate, Rajender Pd. Saxena, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of proceedings under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Headnote:

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Land Acquisition Act,1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Twin conditions of non-payment of compensation and/or not taking possession would lead to deemed lapse of proceedings – If any of twin conditions is not satisfied, proceedings cannot be declared to be lapsed – Order of High Court cannot be sustained in law – Respondent is a purchaser after publication of notice under Sections 4 and 6 of Act and in fact after award of Land Acquisition Collector – Subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of proceedings under 2013 Act – Finding that compensation was not offered to land owners and therefore deposit in Court cannot be regarded as payment of compensation is not tenable – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 5, 8, 9 and 10)

Facts of the case:

Challenge in the present appeal is to a judgment and order dated 03.02.2015 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed in view of the earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 1393 of 2014.

Findings of Court:

Order passed by High Court is not sustainable and therefore, the same is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Hemant Gupta, J.

The challenge in the present appeal is to a judgment and order dated 03.02.2015 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed in view of the earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court in Gyanender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [W.P.(C) No. 1393 of 2014].

2. The respondent purchased the land measuring 7 Bigha 1 Biswa situated in village Sayoorpur, Tehsil- Mehrauli, New Delhi on 25.11.2011. The original land owner had filed a Writ Petition No. 2276 of 1985 challenging the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894[For short the Act] dated 25.11.1980 and 20.05.1985 respectively. The Land Acquisition Collector had announced the award on 14.05.1987. The said writ petition filed by the original land owner was dismissed on 03.03.2005 in view of the order passed on the same date in Chatro Devi v. Union of India & Ors., 2005 SCC Online Delhi 279. Subsequently, a review application was filed by the original land owner inter alia on the ground that the objections filed under Section 5A were not considered. It was found by the High Court that the original land owner has not given any date of filing of the objection, nor the details as to when and before whom the objections were filed. The objections were not attached with the writ petition either. Consequently, the review application was dismissed on 27.04.2006. It was thereafter, the purchaser has purchased the property on 25.11.2011.

3. The Division Bench in Gyanender Singh noticed the payment deposited by the appellant and held as under:

    "It is absolutely clear from the above extracts that unless and until the compensation is tendered to the persons interested, mere depositing of the compensation in the court would not be sufficient. To be clear, compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the deposit of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount was tendered in this Court without first being offered to the persons interested (petitioners). Therefore, in view of the clear dictum of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), such deposit of compensation in court cannot be regarded as a payment of compensation as contemplated under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act."

4. The High Court declared the acquisition proceedings as lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013[For short, the 2013 Act'].

5. Such provision has been interpreted in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 wherein it has been held that twin conditions of non-payment of compensation and/or not taking possession would lead to the deemed lapse of proceedings. Therefore, if any of the twin conditions is not satisfied, the proceedings cannot be declared to be lapsed.

6. The stand of the appellant was that even after the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the original land owner, interim orders in respect of the same acquisition in other writ petitions were in operation, therefore, the appellant could not have taken possession of the land.

7. It was also pointed out that the compensation was deposited by filing an application before the High Court on 30.12.2013 since the deposit had not been accepted by the Additional District Judge, South on account of the Court being closed for winter vacations. Thus, an application under Article 227 of the Constitution- CM(M) No. 1407 of 2013 was filed before the High Court. The appellant had thus deposited cheques before the High Court for the amounts payable to original land owner namely Balkishan S/o Ram Ratan Kapayi such as a sum of Rs. 14,61,188.25 in respect of land measuring 53 Bigha and 9 Biswa, Rs. 4,21,878.93 for land measuring 13 Bigha and 6 Biswa and Rs. 4


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top