Scribd
Upload
23 views6 pages

Judgement 14

Uploaded by

linatdavis22
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
23 views6 pages

Judgement 14

Uploaded by

linatdavis22
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 945 OF 2023


(@ SLP (C) No. 3119 of 2023)
(@ Diary No. 28000 of 2022)

Land and Building Department and Anr. …Appellant(s)

Versus

Manish Sethi and Ors. …Respondent(s)

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. 6060 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ

petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect 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

Land and Building Department and the Land Acquisition Collector have
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by R

preferred the present appeal.


Natarajan
Date: 2023.02.17
17:06:45 IST
Reason:

1
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,

it is apparent that the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and

has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is

deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 relying

upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal

Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.

reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that the compensation

has not been tendered and/or paid to the landowners. However, it is

required to be noted that before the High Court, it was the specific case

on behalf of the appellant that the possession of the land in question

was taken on 28.03.2007.

3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal

Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been overruled by the Constitution

Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs.

Manoharlal and Ors. reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365

and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held as

under:-

“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune


Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled
and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn.
[Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,
(2014) 3 SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled.
The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree

2
Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3
SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying down good law, is
overruled and other decisions following the same are also
overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
[(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect to the proviso
to Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or
as “and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that
decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in
the present judgment.

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

3
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. The obligation to pay is
complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1).
The landowners who had refused to accept compensation
or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot
claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is


to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section
24(1)(b).

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the


1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by
drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has
been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the
1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting
provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once
possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section
24(2).

4
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case
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
1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders
passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of
five years.

366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give


rise to new cause of action to question the legality of
concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not
revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen
concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question
the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen
proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the
treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”

4. In view of the above and considering the stand taken by the

appellant before the High Court that the possession of the disputed land

in question was taken on 28.03.2007 and applying the law laid down by

this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is

unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and

accordingly the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

is quashed and set aside. There shall not be any deemed lapse under

Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as held by the High Court.

5
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]

………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.


FEBRUARY 17, 2023. [SANJAY KAROL]

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy