1. Land acquisition proceedings under Act 1894 — Claim of lapse under Section 24(2) of Act 2013 due to non-payment of compensation. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1203
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Government of NCT of Delhi - Appellant
Versus
Krishna Saini & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8933 of 2022 (@ SLP (C) No. 21816 of 2022) (@ Diary No. 25683 of 2022)
Decided on : 02-12-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – In case a person has been tendered compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of 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 – Obligation to pay is complete by tendering amount under Section 31(1).
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – In case a person has been tendered compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of 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 – Obligation to pay is complete by tendering amount under Section 31(1).
Subject
Land Acquisition - Lapse of 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 31(1) – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – In case a person has been tendered compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of 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 – Obligation to pay is complete by tendering amount under Section 31(1) – Landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – Section 24(2) of 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition – Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of 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 legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition – Impugned Judgment and Order passed by High quashed and set aside. (Paras 3 and 4)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 10135 of 2015 by which the High Court has declared that acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of the subject land 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, Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. The same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Prachi Chahal, Adv. Ms. Ritu Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Joshi, Adv. Ms. Himani Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Joshi, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Ankit Agarwal, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Prachi Chahal, Adv. Ms. Ritu Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Joshi, Adv. Ms. Himani Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Joshi, Adv. Mr. Ravi Bharuka, AOR Ankit Agarwal, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of Act 2013 solely on the ground that compensation has not been tendered. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court relied on a precedent specifically overruled by a Constitution Bench regarding the interpretation of Section 24(2) of Act 2013. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of Act 2013 only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned judgment and order of the High Court quashed and set aside. (Para 4 )
6. When do land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Proceedings lapse only where, due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to the Act's commencement, possession of land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. If either possession is taken or compensation is paid, there is no lapse. (Para 3 )
7. Does the non-deposit of compensation in court result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings?
No, the non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. (Para 3 )
8. Does the refusal of a landowner to accept tendered compensation lead to a lapse of acquisition?
No, the obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act; landowners who refuse to accept compensation cannot claim that the proceedings lapsed. (Para 3 )
9. Does Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act allow for the reopening of concluded land acquisition proceedings?
No, Section 24(2) applies only to proceedings pending as of January 1, 2014, and does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded proceedings. (Para 3 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 10135 of 2015 by which the High Court has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) in respect of the subject land 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 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the appellants -original respondents that the possession of the subject land was taken on 05.09.2002. The same was disputed by the original writ petitioners. However, thereafter, solely on the ground that the compensation has not been tendered and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 have lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. , (2020) 8 SCC 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 Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the same are also 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 decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment.
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 1-1-2014, 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.
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 conseq
