1. Land acquisition under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Claim for lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to alleged non-payment of compensation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 255
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Batti & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.22803 of 2019)
WITH
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Batti & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1919 of 2023 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) D.No.30579 of 2021)
Decided On : 22-03-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act are not satisfied in case in hand – There cannot be lapsing of acquisition of land.
Ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act are not satisfied in case in hand – There cannot be lapsing of acquisition of land.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Acquisition and Compensation
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 4 – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – There is nothing on record to suggest as to what action was taken by person who claimed interest in property to seek compensation, in case land owned by him was acquired more than two decades back and no compensation paid – Litigation started only with enactment of Act of 2013 – Ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act are not satisfied in case in hand – There cannot be lapsing of acquisition of land – Impugned order passed by High Court set aside – Writ petition filed by respondents in High Court stands dismissed. (Paras 14, 15 and 16)
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether acquisition lapsed due to non-payment of compensation despite possession being taken — Impact of Constitution Bench ruling overruling previous precedent on Section 24(2) interpretation. (Para 9 )
3. Possession of land was taken and handed to the Forest Department — Compensation was not paid due to an existing dispute regarding the title of the land. (Para 7 , 13 , 14 )
4. Land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court order set aside — Writ petition dismissed. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. When does land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Acquisition lapses only if both possession of the land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to the Act's commencement. (Para 12 )
7. Does the non-payment of compensation result in lapse if possession has already been taken?
No. If possession has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse even if compensation has not been paid. (Para 12 )
8. Does Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act allow for the reopening of concluded land acquisition proceedings?
No. Section 24(2) does not give rise to a new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings, nor does it revive stale or time-barred claims. (Para 12 )
9. What is the effect of taking possession under the 1894 Act regarding the vesting of land?
Once possession is taken under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in the State, and there is no provision for divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Para 12 )
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This order will dispose of two appeals arising out of order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in W.P(C) No. 12135/2015. One appeal is preferred by Delhi Development Authority whereas the another has been filed by Government of NCT of Delhi.
3. The service on respondent is complete. However, no one appeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing.
4. The facts of the cases are available on record. Vide notification dated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short, ‘the Act’) large chunk of the land measuring about 3,500 Hectares was sought to be acquired for planned development of part of Delhi. It was followed by notification issued on June 20, 1990 under Section 6 of the Act. The Award bearing No. 13/9293 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (DS), Delhi on 19.06.1992.
5. It is evident from the facts noticed by the High Court in the impugned order that husband of the respondent late Mange Ram was son of late Harkesh. He was fatherinlaw of the respondent no.1 writ petitioner. He was claimed to be the recorded owner of 1/12th share [01 bigha and 19 biswas and 03 biswansi] in land bearing Khasra Nos. 281/4(1011), 282/4 (103) and 80(28) total area measuring 23 bighas and 2 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Ghari Mandu, Shahdara, Delhi.
6. There is nothing on record to suggest the acquisition in question was ever challenged by the predecessorininterest of respondent no.1. The writ petition came to be filed in the year 2015 referring to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the 2013 Act”) claiming that the possession of land having not been taken and the compensation not paid, the acquisition has lapsed.
7. The High Court noticed the fact that the possession of the land had been taken by the State and handed over to the Forest Department for development as green belt, agriculture and water body as the land falls in ‘O’ Zone. It was further pleaded that respondent no.1 was not entitled to receive any compensation as the land, in fact, vested in Gaon Sabha.
8. After considering the arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the High Court, while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 held that the acquisition in question has lapsed qua the land of the respondent no.1 as the compensation therefor had not been tendered. The issue regarding entitlement of compensation to the respondent as there was dispute regarding the title of the land, was kept open.
9. The arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellant are that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby earlier judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.’s case (supra) was overruled the order passed by the High Court is to be set aside. It was opined by the Constitution Bench that compliance to either of the two conditions i.e. taking over of possession of the land or payment of compensation, is good enough to sustain the acquisition. In the case in hand, from the facts admitted on record it is evident that the possession of the land was taken after the acquisition was complete. There was no question of payment of compensation to predecessor in interest of the respondent no.1 as admittedly there was dispute regarding title of the land. The land is recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Even the High Court in the impugned order had kept the question of title open.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
11. There is no dispute on the fact that the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another’s case (supra), was relied upon by the High Court to hold that the acquisition in qu
