1. Land acquisition under 1894 Act — Subsequent purchase of acquired land — Claim for lapsing of proceedings under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 16 , 18 , 21 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 413
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
VERSUS
Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3073 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 23418 of 2017)
Decided On : 06-05-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Lapsing of Acquisition Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Land Acquisition Act,1894 – Section 5-A – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Since original land owner never filed any objections under Section 5-A of Act, purchaser cannot seek relief which was not available even to original land owner – Purchaser has purchased property knowing fully well that vendor has not disputed acquisition proceedings – Amount of compensation was paid on behalf of appellant – Compensation of acquired land paid by appellant cannot lead to lapsing of acquisition – Right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of amount subsequent to orders of High Court – Possession was in fact taken of entire acquired land and compensation was deposited – If appellant had not been able to utilize land on account order of stay of dispossession in various writ petitions filed, that would not be a material fact to return a finding that purchaser continues to be in possession – After Panchanama had been prepared, possession of land owners would be that of a trespasser – Purchaser is not entitled to any declaration of lapsing of acquisition proceedings on the ground that it has purchased land after vesting of land with State and possession has been taken of land and compensation has also been deposited in respect of entire land – Order passed by High Court set aside. (Paras 37, 38, 39, 40, 42 and 44)
Facts of the case:
Challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 9.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1was allowed and the proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were declared to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Findings of Court:
Order passed by High Court set aside. However, the appellant shall refund the amount of Rs.16,61,774/- to the purchaser, without any interest as such deposit was a voluntary offer to deposit, in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- civil law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya, For M/S. Saharya & Co., Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Pankaj Vivek, Krishan Kumar, Nitin Pal, Kartik Sarsoonja, Sujeeta Srivastava, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya, For M/S. Saharya & Co., Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Pankaj Vivek, Krishan Kumar, Nitin Pal, Kartik Sarsoonja, Sujeeta Srivastava, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Whether acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act — Right of subsequent purchaser to challenge acquisition after vesting in State. (Para 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 )
3. Analysis of Section 24(2) conditions — Effect of panchnama on possession — Limited scope of quashing Section 6 declarations to objectors — Status of subsequent purchasers. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 )
4. Acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) if possession is taken or compensation is paid — Subsequent purchasers cannot challenge concluded acquisitions. (Para 31 , 43 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Direction to refund voluntary deposit to purchaser. (Para 44 )
6. When does land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Acquisition lapses only when both conditions are met: physical possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. If either possession is taken or compensation is paid, the proceedings do not lapse. (Para 29 , 31 )
7. How is physical possession determined under the 1894 Act for the purpose of Section 24(2)?
Possession is taken by drawing an inquest report or memorandum (panchnama). Once vesting occurs via panchnama, the State is presumed to be in possession, and any subsequent re-entry by the landowner is considered trespassing. (Para 30 , 31 , 40 )
8. Does the quashing of a Section 6 declaration in a writ petition benefit all landowners?
No. Unless a Section 6 declaration is explicitly quashed in toto, the benefit extends only to the writ petitioners. Specifically, quashing due to non-consideration of Section 5A objections only benefits those who actually filed such objections. (Para 13 , 14 , 34 , 36 )
9. Can a subsequent purchaser of acquired land challenge the acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act?
No. A purchaser who acquires land after it has vested in the State cannot seek a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed. Such a right is not provided under the 2013 Act and would be against public policy. (Para 43 )
JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 9.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, For short, the ‘purchaser’, was allowed and the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, For short, the ‘Act’, were declared to have lapsed in terms 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’]
2. The process of acquisition of land admeasuring 50,000 Bighas situated in 12 villages for the planned development of Delhi started way back in 1980. The intention to acquire the land was published vide notification dated 5.11.1980 in respect of land situated in villages of Tughlakabad, Tigri, Deoli, Khanpur, Said-ul- Ajaib, Neb Sarai, Hauz Khas and Khirki, and vide notification dated 25.11.1980 in respect of the land situated in villages Chattarpur, Satbari Maidangarhi, Sayoorpur and Rajpur Khurd. The declarations under Section 6 of the Act were published on 27.5.1985, 6.6.1985, 7.6.1985 and 26.2.1986 and the award were announced on 20.5.1987 or thereafter.
3. M/s. Satluj Bhatta Co. through its partners, Hereinafter referred to as “Original land owners”, (1) Shri Ishwar Chander Gupta; (2) Shri Hari Chand; and (3) Shri Jai Chand were owners of land admeasuring 58 Bigha 14 Biswa. An agreement to sell was executed by them on 25.9.1990 for the land measuring 28 Bigha 08 Biswa with the purchaser. Thereafter, the purchaser is said to have purchased the land in question vide sale deeds dated 30.8.1991 and 27.2.1991.
4. The purchaser for the first time in written synopsis, filed after the conclusion of the arguments, asserted that the original land owners in respect of land measuring 58 Bigha 14 Biswa situated in revenue estate of Village Sayoorpur, had filed a Writ Petition No. 2736 of 1985 titled as Ishwar Chand Gupta v. Union of India before the High Court. We requisitioned the records of the said writ petition from the High Court. It transpires that the writ petition was filed on or about 30.10.1985 on the ground that the notification dated 20.5.1985 under Section 6 of the Act had been published after a period of more than three years of the notification under Section 4 of the Act on 25.11.1980. There is no assertion that the original land owners had filed any objections under Section 5A of the Act. The said writ petition was dismissed on 2.12.1985 when the following order was passed:
“For the reasons recorded in Civil Writ No. 426 of 1981 titled Muni Lal & Others v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others decided on 15th November, 1983 and Civil Writ 2850 of 1985 titled Hemant Sharma and Others v. Union of India and others decided on 25th November, 1985, the petition is without merit. Dismissed.”
5. The Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4169 of 1986 filed against the said order was withdrawn on 12.9.1989 with two other petitions. The order passed by this Court reads as thus:
“These three special leave petitions along with several other cases were heard together. They are directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting the writ petitions of the present petitioners challenging a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated by Mr. Chitale, the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Special Leave Petition No. 1224 of 1986 that on a subsequent writ petition filed by another interested party, the High Court has struck down the subsequent notification issued under Section 6 of the Act and in the circumstances the present special leave petitions have become infructuous and will not be pressed. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondents has refuted the proposition. He says that the subsequent judgment of the Delhi High Court may be impugned in this Court and if the challenge is successful, the petitioners who are not parties to that case will not be in a position to take any advantage ou
