SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority - Appellants
Versus
Bhagi Singh and Ors. -Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2023 (@ SLP (C) NO. 1507 OF 2023) (@ DIARY NO. 3379 OF 2022)
Decided On : 20-01-2023
Fact of the Case:
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against the High Court's decision declaring that the acquisition proceedings for a specific land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the possession of the land in question had been taken over by the DDA, making the High Court's judgment unsustainable.Issues:
Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act.Ratio Decidendi:
The court referred to a Constitution Bench decision which clarified that if possession has been taken or compensation has been paid, there is no lapse. It also emphasized that non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.Final Decision:
The impugned judgment was quashed and set aside, and the appeal was allowed with no costs.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. 8291 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard 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 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears and so stated in the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) before the High Court that the possession of the land in question – Khasra No. 28 was taken over by the DDA through LAC/L&B Department on 21.03.2007. Despite the above, the High Court has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that no physical possession was taken in respect of the suit land.
4. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is just contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraph 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as under:-
“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 consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 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.
Non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act.
The application of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded proceedings but applies to pending proceedings as on its enforcement date.
Land acquisition proceeding will not lapse where possession of land could not be taken by authority due to pending litigation/stay.
Possession taken or compensation paid prevents a lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Se....
Possession of land taken or compensation paid prevents a lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Possession not being taken due to a court stay does not entitle the landowner to claim benefit under Section 24(2) of Act 2013.
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 Se....
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 Se....
Obtaining a stay on possession precludes landowners from claiming lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.