Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Bhim Sain Goel And Other – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3151 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 17367 of 2016)
Decided On : 25-04-2022
Land Acquisition - Delay Condoned - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, Section 6 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., Union of India and Ors. v. Shiv Raj and Ors., Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others, Girish Chhabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors - The court discussed the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and its interpretation by the Supreme Court and this Court in various cases. It also highlighted the principle that the benefits of Section 24(2) should not be available to litigants who have obtained interim orders preventing the acquiring authority from taking possession of the land. The court emphasized that the law does not expect the performance of the impossible and that the authorities should not be disabled from performing their duties due to impossibility. The court also discussed the principle of restitution and the need to discourage undue enrichment or drawing of undue advantage by using the court as a tool. It clarified that the provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in cases where authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 01-01-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by the court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute regarding the acquisition of lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the subsequent challenge under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The respondents had obtained interim orders preventing the acquiring authority from taking possession of the land, and later claimed the benefit of the alleged lapsing of the proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to their conduct in obtaining interim orders preventing the acquiring authority from taking possession of the land. The court held that the respondents cannot take advantage of a situation created by them of interim order and that the impugned judgment of the High Court would have to be set aside.
Issues: The key issues included the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the effect of interim orders obtained by the respondents, and the subsequent developments under the National Highways Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the benefits of Section 24(2) should not be available to litigants who have obtained interim orders preventing the acquiring authority from taking possession of the land. It also clarified that the provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in cases where authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 01-01-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by the court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside. The court directed that if the respondents had not filed any application under Section 18 of the 1894 Act seeking reference and claiming enhanced compensation pursuant to the Award dated 22.08.2005, they should be granted an opportunity to make an application under Section 18, and the matter be adjudicated under the earlier Act. The application would not be dismissed on the ground of delay.
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J. - Delay condoned.
2. Applications for condonation of delay in filing substitution, setting aside abatement and substitution are allowed.
Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, learned counsel, appears for the legal representatives of deceased respondents.
3. Leave granted.
4. A notification dated 21.03.2003 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 1894 Act') purporting to acquire lands belonging to the respondents. This was duly followed up by declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act on 18.03.2004. On 22.08.2005, an Award was passed in the matter. Writ Petition No. 21639/2005 came to be filed before the High Court laying challenge to the declaration under Section 6. What is more pertinent is that, the High Court directed on 18.11.2005 that status quo with regard to nature, title and possession of the land in question be maintained. It is the case of the appellant that the authority could not take possession of the land as a result of the interim order. The writ petition came to be dismissed. However, on the application of the respondents, by order dated 18.09.2007, the High Court extended the stay order by a week. The respondents approached this Court by filing SLP (C)No. 17504-08/2007. This was later converted into Civil Appeal No. 4116-4120/2009. Again, what is apposite to note is that an interim order of stay was passed. In the meantime, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 2013 Act') came into force with effect from 01.01.2014. In the meantime, the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 3209/2015. This writ petition was premised on the lapsing of the proceedings under the 1894 Act, based on Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The writ petition came to be allowed by the High Court on 02.02.2016. Thereafter, the respondents withdrew Civil Appeal No. 4116-4120/2009. It is this judgment of the High Court dated 02.02.2016 which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
5. The findings of the High Court can be gleaned from the following paragraphs:
"2. The Land Acquisition Collector claims that possession of the said land was taken on 24.12.2008. Interestingly, they claim that immediately on taking over possession of the subject land the same was handed to the DDA. However, the affidavit filed on behalf of the DDA states that possession was not handed over by the Land Acquisition Collector to the DDA. Apart form this the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the respondents/LAC could not have taken possession of the subject land because there was a status quo order which had been passed by a Division Bench of this court on 18.11.2005 in W.P. (C) 21639/2005. That writ petition was dismissed on 20.08.2007. Thereafter a special leave petition was filed before the Supreme Court being S.L.P. (C)No. 17504/2007 (later the special leave petition was admitted and has now become Civil Appeal Nos. 4116-4120 of 2009) in which stay was granted on 19.09.2007 and that has continued till date. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, possession of the said land has not been taken by the respondents. Insofar as the issue of compensation is concerned, it is an admitted position that the same has not been offered or paid to the petitioners.
3. Without going into the controversy of physical possession, this much is clear that the Award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and the compensation has also not been paid. The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court and this Court in the following cases stand satisfied: -
(1) Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.: (2014) 3 SCC 183;
(2) Union of India and Ors. v. Shiv Raj and Ors: (2014) 6 SCC 564;
(3) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors: Civil
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – After acquisition of land and passing of award, land vests in State free from all encumbrances – Vesting of land with State is with possession – Any person reta....
(1) Acquisition of land – In a case where on the date of commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no award has been ....
Once possession is taken and an award is passed, challenges to land acquisition proceedings are not maintainable, and remedies for compensation must be sought through reference proceedings.
Once land is vested in the government after acquisition, it cannot be returned to the original owners, even if not utilized for the intended purpose.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, both the conditions of physical possession and payment of compe....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
