CASE TITLE:
Govt. of Nct of Delhi v. Sunil Jain.
DATE OF ORDER:
13 Jan 2023.
JUDGE(S):
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar.
PARTIES:
Petitioner: Govt. of Nct of Delhi.
Respondent: Sunil Jain.
SUBJECT:
In the present case, the Government of NCT of Delhi is appealing against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi which allowed the writ petition of the private respondents and declared the acquisition with respect to the land in question to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Government believes that the High Court's judgment is wrong, and is therefore appealing for it to be overturned.
BRIEF OF THE JUDGEMENT:
- In the present case, the High Court has erred in entertaining the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioners - subsequent purchasers and declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed.
- This is because subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition.
- The appellant had also argued that the possession could not be taken over due to the pending litigation which ended up in the Supreme Court upholding the acquisition proceedings.
- It was held that the period during the stay is to be excluded. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183], which had been relied upon by the High Court, was overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129].
- Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act states that if an award was not made before the commencement of the 2013 Act (1-1-2014), then the proceedings for awarding compensation shall not lapse. Instead, the compensation shall be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act. This means that the same proceedings can be continued and any relevant changes in the compensation due shall be determined in accordance with the new Act.
- Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act allows for the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings if the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid within a window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court. If possession has been taken, but compensation has not been paid, or if compensation has been paid, but possession has not been taken, then there is no lapse. In case of non-deposit of compensation (in court) 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. Interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act can be granted in case the obligation under Section 31 of the said Act has not been fulfilled.
- Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act states that if the authorities fail to take possession of the land and pay or deposit the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act within five years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, then the proceedings for land acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed.
- This means that if the authorities do not take possession of the land and pay or deposit the compensation within five years of the notification, then the proceedings for land acquisition will be deemed to have lapsed. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
- This section of the 2013 Act states that any proceedings pending on the enforcement date of the 2013 Act (January 1st, 2014) cannot be reopened to question the legality of the acquisition. This means that landowners cannot challenge the legality of the mode of taking possession or the deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of the court to invalidate the acquisition. Therefore, the High Court's judgment is unsustainable and the petitioners' request for the lapse of the acquisition proceedings is dismissed.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it can be said that the High Court's judgment of declaring the acquisition to have lapsed is unsustainable. This is because the subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition. Additionally, as per Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, if the authorities fail to take possession of the land and pay or deposit the compensation within five years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, then the proceedings for land acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years. Therefore, the petitioners' request for the lapse of the acquisition proceedings is dismissed.
