DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus ASHA PRAKASH

ABCDEFGH919919DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYv.ASHA PRAKASH(Civil Appeal No. 364 of 2023)JANUARY 20, 2023[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –Writ petitionwas preferred by original writ petitioner-subsequent purchaser –High Court relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vsHarakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors allowed the writ petition preferredby the respondent/original writ petitioners and held that theacquisition proceedings in respect of land in question is deemed tohave lapsed u/s.24(2) of 2013 Act as compensation was not paid tothe original landowners – On appeal, held : The subsequentpurchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition/lapse ofacquisition – Thus, High Court committed an error in entertainingthe writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 – Also, applyingthe law laid by Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority, whichhas overruled the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation, to the factsof the instant case – Impugned judgment and order of the HighCourt unsustainable – Appeal allowed.Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors.(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Manav Dharam Trustand Anr., (2017) 6 SCC 751– held not good law.Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. HarakchandMisrimal Solanki & ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1SCR 783; Shiv Kumar and Anr. vs. Union of India andOrs., (2019) 10 SCC 229; Delhi Development Authorityvs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022 decided by the Supreme Court); DelhiAdministration Thr. Secretary, Land and BuildingDepartment & Ors. vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., (CivilAppeal No. 3646 of 2022 decided by the SupremeCourt) – referred to. [2023] 1 S.C.R. 919 ABCDEFGH920SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.Case Law Reference[2020] 3 SCR 1followedPara 4, 5[2014] 1 SCR 783referred toPara 2, 4[2017] 4 SCR 232referred toPara 2,3CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.364 of2023.From the Judgment and Order dated 04.01.2018 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.9545 of 2015.Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, RahulPandey, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. SujeetaSrivastava, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal,Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Smita Maan,Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Shekhar Yadav, Ms.Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Rachita Kadyan, N. S. Vashist, Gagan Gupta,Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, Advs.for the appearing parties.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byM. R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WritPetition(C) No. 9545 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed thesaid writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiatedunder the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,1894”) with regard to the land in question is deemed to have lapsedunder Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparencyin Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(hereinafter referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority(DDA) has preferred the present appeal.2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespective parties and on going through the impugned judgment andorder passed by the High Court, it appears that a specific plea wasraised before the High Court on the maintainability of the writ petitionby the original writ petitioner as he was the subsequent purchaser.However, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case ofGovernment (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Anr., ABCDEFGH921(2017) 6 SCC 751, the High Court has overruled the said objection andthereafter has entertained the writ petition preferred by the respondentNo. 1 herein – original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser andthereafter after following the decision of this Court in the case of PuneMunicipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand MisirimalSolanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed thesaid writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect tothe land in question is deemed to have lapsed as compensation has notbeen paid to the original landowners.3. The decision of this Court in the case of Manav Dharam Trustand Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court whilepassing the impugned judgment and order and overruling the objectionraised on behalf of the appellant on the maintainability of the writ petitionat the instance of the respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner is heldto be not a good law in view of the subsequent decision of this Court inthe case of Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.,(2019) 10 SCC 229 and thereafter in the subsequent decisions in thecase of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd.& Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 and Delhi AdministrationThr. Secretary, Land and Building Department & Ors. Vs. PawanKumar & Ors., - Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022. In the aforesaiddecisions, it is specifically observed and held by this Court that thesubsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition / lapse ofacquisition.4. Under the circumstances, the High Court has committed a graveerror in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1herein, who is a subsequent purchaser praying for deemed lapse ofacquisition. Even otherwise, the decision of this Court in the case ofPune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) relied upon by theHigh Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has beenspecifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the caseof Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020)8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of thisCourt has observed and held as under:-“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in PuneMunicipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. HarakchandMisirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled andall other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [PuneDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ASHA PRAKASHAND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.] ABCDEFGH922SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decisionin Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji NagarResidential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannotbe said to be laying down good law, is overruled and otherdecisions following the same are also overruled. In IndoreDevelopment Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], theaspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether“or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed forconsideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, inthe light of the discussion in the present judgment.366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answerthe questions as under:366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in casethe award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date ofcommencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse ofproceedings. Compensation has to be determined under theprovisions of the 2013 Act.366.2. In case the award has been passed within thewindow period of five years excluding the period covered byan interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continueas provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) betweenpossession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as“and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings underSection 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inactionof authorities for five years or more prior to commencementof the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken norcompensation has been paid. In other words, in case possessionhas been taken, compensation has not been paid then there isno lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possessionhas not been taken then there is no lapse.366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensationin court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in theproviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited withrespect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries ABCDEFGH923(landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisitionunder Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled tocompensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest underSection 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit ofcompensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of landacquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect tothe majority of holdings for five years or more, compensationunder the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as onthe date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 ofthe 1894 Act.366.5. In case a person has been tendered thecompensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act,it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed underSection 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit ofcompensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete bytendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landownerswho had refused to accept compensation or who soughtreference for higher compensation, cannot claim that theacquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the2013 Act.366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act isto be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section24(1)(b).366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing ofinquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed ontaking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the landvests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2)of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is nolapse under Section 24(2).366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for adeemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authoritieshave failed due to their inaction to take possession and paycompensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act cameinto force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with theauthority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistenceDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. ASHA PRAKASHAND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.] ABCDEFGH924SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2023] 1 S.C.R.of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in thecomputation of five years.366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give riseto new cause of action to question the legality of concludedproceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to aproceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claimsand does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allowlandowners to question the legality of mode of taking possessionto reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation inthe treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid threedecisions on the locus of the respondent No. 1 – subsequent purchaserto file the writ petition / challenge the acquisition / lapse of acquisitionand the decision of this Court in the case of Indore DevelopmentAuthority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the impugnedjudgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and thesame deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashedand set aside,Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.Ankit GyanAppeal allowed.(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)