1. Land acquisition under 1894 Act — Possession taken but compensation unpaid — Claim of lapse under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act — Challenge to High Court order. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 634
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Jagan Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4335 OF 2023
Decided On : 13-07-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Udaibir Kochar, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Krishan Kumar, AOR Mrs. Neetu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nitin Pal, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Adv. Ms. Muskan Jain, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Udaibir Kochar, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Krishan Kumar, AOR Mrs. Neetu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nitin Pal, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Adv. Ms. Muskan Jain, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Acquisition of land – Once it is held that acquisition under 1894 Act continues to be valid, first respondent is disentitled to claim compensation payable in terms of 2013 Act which was not applicable to acquisition.
(2) Limitation – Liberal and justice-oriented approach needs to be adopted in matters of condonation of delay so that substantive rights of parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay.
Headnote:
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Limitation – Condonation of delay – There cannot be any hard and fast rule to decide whether sufficient cause exists – It all depends on facts and circumstances of each individual case – Liberal and justice-oriented approach needs to be adopted in matters of condonation of delay so that substantive rights of parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay – Power under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 must be exercised in a very meaningful manner which will serve ends of justice – Fact that decision on which impugned judgment is based has been overruled is by itself no ground to condone a long delay. (Paras 11, 12 and 13)
(B) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 11 – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Possession of acquired land was taken over on 19th January 2006 – As such, sub-section (2) of Section 24 of 2013 Act will have no application even though compensation has not been paid – When Writ Petition was filed invoking sub-section (2) of Section 24 of 2013 Act, acquired land was already put to use for an important public purpose of metro depot – Use of land for public purposes for last several years is certainly a relevant factor for adopting a liberal approach while considering prayer for condoning delay in approaching Court – In a case where land was not put to use for a public purpose, approach of Court while deciding application for condonation of a long delay in such a case would have been different – Once it is held that acquisition under 1894 Act continues to be valid, first respondent is disentitled to claim compensation payable in terms of 2013 Act which was not applicable to acquisition – However, appellant is entitled to receive compensation already determined under award made under 1894 Act – Though, appeal succeeds, considering conduct of appellant, appellant saddled with costs of ?50,000/- to be paid to respondent. (Paras 6, 14, 17, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
By the impugned judgment and order dated 11th August 2016, High Court held that Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of 2013 Act will apply as the compensation has not been paid to first respondent although physical possession of the acquired land has been taken over by the appellant. High Court, however, directed the appellant to pay compensation to the first respondent in accordance with the 2013 Act.
Findings of Court:
A citizen has lost his valuable property by way of compulsory acquisition. Compulsory acquisition has been made for a public purpose and therefore, appellant and all the concerned authorities cannot allow the pavement to be used for any purpose except for allowing people to walk. Either appellant takes immediate action on this behalf or calls upon authorities empowered to take action to do the needful immediately in accordance with the law.
Result : Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant seeks condonation of delay citing public utility of land; Respondent opposes condonation citing lack of sufficient cause and acquiescence to the High Court's judgment. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Condonation of delay warrants a liberal approach when land is utilized for significant public purposes; Section 24(2) of 2013 Act requires both non-possession and non-payment for lapse. (Para 6 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Land acquisition under the 1894 Act does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if physical possession has been taken, regardless of compensation payment. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment quashed — Acquisition held valid — Direction to pay compensation under 1894 Act and costs to the respondent. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 )
6. When does land acquisition under the 1894 Act lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Acquisition lapses only if both physical possession of the land 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 5 , 6 )
7. How should courts approach applications for condonation of long delays in land acquisition matters involving public utility?
Courts should adopt a liberal and justice-oriented approach. The use of acquired land for an important public purpose is a relevant factor in condoning significant delays to ensure substantive rights are not defeated. (Para 12 , 14 , 16 )
8. Which Act governs compensation if an acquisition under the 1894 Act is held to be valid despite the commencement of the 2013 Act?
If the acquisition under the 1894 Act continues to be valid, the claimant is entitled to the compensation determined under the award made under the 1894 Act, not the 2013 Act. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Interlocutory Application No.37319 of 2022
1. We have recorded reasons for condoning the delay in the main judgment.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. The first respondent filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi for questioning the acquisition of the lands subject matter of the Writ Petition. The acquisition was under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the 1894 Act’). The notification under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued on 23rd June 1989, which culminated in an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, which was made on 18th June 1992. In the meanwhile, in the year 1990, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings, which was dismissed on 20th May 2005. On 19th January 2006, the appellant took over possession of the acquired land. With effect from 1st January 2014, the 1894 Act was repealed and the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the 2013 Act’) were brought into force. On 25th May 2015, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition contending that in view of sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. By the impugned judgment and order dated 11th August 2016, by relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 the High Court held that sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act will apply as the compensation has not been paid to the first respondent although physical possession of the acquired land has been taken over by the appellant. The High Court, however, directed the appellant to pay compensation to the first respondent in accordance with the 2013 Act.
3. On 6th March 2020, a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 expressly overruled its earlier decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.1 and all other decisions based on the said decision. It was held by the Constitution Bench that another decision of this Court in the case of Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 353 was not correct. Even this decision was relied upon in the impugned judgment.
4. The Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority, (2020) 8 SCC 129 interpreted sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act reads thus:
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.–
(1) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” (emphasis added)
5. In paragraph 366.3 of the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority, it was held thus:
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:
366.1. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
366.2.
