CAUSE TITLE:
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sushil Kumar Gupta & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
10 February 2023
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Justice MR Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
PARTIES:
Appellant: Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Respondent: Sushil Kumar Gupta & Ors.
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), set aside the judgement of the High Court of Delhi and held that land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not amount to lapse of proceedings in case of non-deposit of compensation to the Court.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Section 24(1) - In case of a pending land acquisition proceeding, where a compensation award has not been passed under the 1894 Act, the landowners would be entitled to compensation prescribed under the 2013 Act.
- Section 24(2) - If the compensation award has been made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, then the land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act would be deemed to have lapsed.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Section 4 - Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers thereupon
- Section 31 - Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court - On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section.
- Section 34 - Payment of interest - When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 72 [nine per centum] per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited.
BRIEF FACTS:
- The present appeal is filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi against the impugned judgement and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated 30.05.2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1399 of 2014. In the said writ, the High Court had allowed the petition and declared that the proceedings with respect to land acquisition for the land in issue have lapsed u/s 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- The present appeal in the Supreme Court was filed after a huge delay and therefore, the appellants were seeking the condonation of delay in filing the said petition.
QUESTIONS RAISED:
- Whether the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed u/s 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES:
- The counsel for the appellant argued that there was a huge delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. Court which should have been condoned by the Ld. Court.
- The Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the argument of the appellants and contended that there was no delay in filing the appeal. Further, the respondents took reliance on the judgement passed in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and sought condonation for delay.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- The Ld. Court after having gone through the impugned judgement and order passed by the Delhi High Court observed that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 12.03.1981.
- The Court observed that the expression “paid” as mentioned under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is not inclusive of a deposit of compensation in court and the consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2). As per the proviso, in case the compensation has not been deposited with respect to the majority of landholdings, then all landowners or beneficiaries will be entitled to compensation as per the 2013 Act on the date of notification for land acquisition u/s 4 of the 1894 Act.
- It was also noted by the Court that in case of non-compliance under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, interest u/s 34 of the said Act can be granted. Furthermore, non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of proceedings for land acquisition.
- The Court set aside the impugned order and judgement passed by the Delhi High Court.
CONCLUSION
The Ld. Court held that the land acquisition proceedings cannot be said to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court set aside the order of the High Court of Delhi.
