CAUSE TITLE:
Delhi Development Authority Versus Shakuntla Devi and Ors.
DATE OF ORDER:
January 20, 2023
JUDGE(S):
M.R.SHAH,C.T.RAVIKUMAR
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Delhi Development Authority
Respondent: Shakuntla Devi and Ors.
BRIEF FACTS
- In this case, the notice required by Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was published on June 27, 1996. Additionally, the Award was approved by Award dated 22.06.1999. According to the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and the counter affidavit that the LAC filed before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the original respondents that the actual vacant peaceful possession of the subject land located in Khasra No. 759(4-16), in which the original writ petitioner is having 1/4th joint share, was taken on December 31, 2013, and that this land, measuring 1 bigha on the spot, was handed over to the requisition
- Notwithstanding the foregoing, the High Court has granted the writ petition and declared that the acquisition of the subject land is deemed to have expired because the compensation has not been paid to or offered to the original writ petitioner. This is done without further commenting on the taking over of the possession. But as was already mentioned, the High Court did not contest and/or take into account the LAC's seizure of the property on December 31, 2013, and immediate transfer of ownership to the recipient by drawing a punchnama.
QUESTIONS RAISED
Whether the 2013 Act's Section 24(2) creates a new basis for challenging the validity of completed land purchase proceedings?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- In light of this Court's Constitution Bench's ruling in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, the High Court's position is unsustainable.
- The Constitution Bench of this Court made the following observations and held that: Given the foregoing discussion, we provide the following answers to the questions: By Section 24(1)(a), there is no lapse of proceedings if the award is not issued by January 1, 2014, the day the 2013 Act takes effect. According to the rules outlined in the 2013 Act, compensation must be decided. If the award was made within the five-year window, excluding the period covered by a temporary injunction, then the proceedings must proceed by Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it had not been repealed.
- In Section 24(2), the term "or" that appears between possession and compensation must be interpreted as either "or" or "and." The considered lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act occurs when neither possession of the land nor compensation has been obtained or paid as a result of authorities' inaction for five years or more before the start of the said Act. In other words, there is no lapse if possession has been obtained but no compensation has been given. Similar to this, there is no lapse if compensation has been paid but possession has not been taken.
- A deposit of compensation in court is not included in the main body of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act's definition of "paid." As a result of non-deposit, all beneficiaries (landowners) as of the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation by the provisions of the 2013 Act. This is stated in the proviso to Section 24(2). Interest may be granted under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 if the duty under Section 31 has not been met. The land acquisition does not end if compensation is not deposited in court.
- In case of non-deposit concerning 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.
- A person may not assert that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court if compensation has been tendered as permitted under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act.
- By submitting the required amount as per Section 31, the responsibility to pay is fulfilled (1). According to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, landowners who refused to accept compensation or asked for higher compensation cannot assert that the acquisition proceedings were abandoned.
- The 2013 Act's provision to Section 24(2) is to be regarded as a part of Section 24(2) and not as a part of Section 24(1). (b).
- Under the 1894 Act and as intended by Section 24(2), possession may be obtained by writing up an inquest report or memorandum. There is no divesting given under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act once the award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, as there is no lapse under Section 24 once possession has been taken (2).
- 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 enters into force, in a land acquisition proceeding still pending with the authority concerned as of January 1, 2014, the provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable. The five-year calculation must not include the duration of any court-issued interim orders.
- The 2013 Act's Section 24(2) does not create a new basis for challenging the validity of completed land purchase proceedings. On January 1, 2014, when the 2013 Act came into force, Section 24 was put into effect. It does not allow landowners to contest the legality of the method of taking possession to reopen proceedings or the method of depositing compensation in the treasury instead of the court to invalidate acquisition, nor does it resurrect stale and time-barred claims or reopen concluded processes.
- The challenged decision and order issued by the High Court merit being quashed and set aside according to the law established by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (above), and is as a result quashed and set aside.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
