On 2nd December 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh observed that when the acquisition proceedings were the subject matter of litigation and because of that the authority could not take the possession of the lands in question and as such not taking over the possession cannot be in favour of the landowners, more particularly, when the acquisition proceedings have been appealed upto this Court. (Land Acquisition Collector (South), New Delhi and Anr. Vs. Suresh B. Kapur & Ors.)
Facts of the Case:
The dispute is with respect to the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 717 (3-02), 718/1 (3-05), 756/2/1 (2-17) and 757/1 (3-07) measuring 12 bighas and 11 biswas in village Chattarpur, New Delhi. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 25.11.1980, which was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 issued vide notification / declaration dated 07.06.1985. Some affected parties challenged the same before the High Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 1639 of 1985 titled “Balak Ram Gupta Vs. Union of India”, which was allowed and the declaration u/s 6 was quashed.
This court while dealing with the impugned acquisition proceedings in the case of Union of India Vs. Gurdeep Singh Uban held that the relief of the judgment pronounced in Balak Ram Gupta would be applicable only to the petitioners therein and it would not be a judgment in rem. This Court further held in Gurdeep Singh Uban that quashing of notification in Balak Ram Gupta cannot be treated as quashing of the entire proceedings.
After the judgment of Gurdeep Singh Uban, few landowners again filed writ petitions which were dismissed. During this period, the land acquisition collector passed an award. The judgment was again challenged by way of SLP, which was dismissed. Respondent 1 filed a writ petitioner for a declaration that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 contending inter alia that neither the possession of the land in question has been taken over nor the compensation has been paid. The same was allowed and now is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The counsel for the appellants submitted that “the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is just contrary to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. The compensation with respect to the land in question was deposited in the Court. Once the compensation was deposited in the Court, one of the conditions mentioned in Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is satisfied and therefore, the acquisition with respect to the lands in question could not have been declared as deemed to have lapsed.
The hon’ble court failed to appreciate that the acquisition proceedings were under challenge, which came to be appealed upto this Hon’ble Court. Because of the pendency of the proceedings challenging the land acquisition proceedings, the possession could not be taken over and the benefit of that could not be given to the landowners. The decision of court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. has been overruled by Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority.”
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents submitted that “the possession of the land in question was not taken over. Unless and until the possession is taken, the compensation even if it is lying deposited in a Court or in any designated account maintained, would not come to the aid of the appellant / authority. The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Gyanender Singh which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order, the appeal against the same has been dismissed by this Court.
The e-original writ petitioner was never offered or tendered the compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector. The e Land Acquisition Collector has failed to disclose whether the respondent No. 1 was offered compensation by the land Acquisition Collector at any point of time and whether it was paid to him or not.
When neither the possession was taken over nor the compensation was actually paid to the respondent No. 1 – original writ petitioner, the Hon’ble High Court has not committed any error in declaring the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed.”
Observations and Judgment of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed, “From the impugned judgment and order passed by the HC, it appears that though it was the case on behalf of the authority that the compensation was deposited in the Court, thereafter, the HC has declared that the acquisition deemed to be lapsed by observing that the question of compensation lying deposited in the Court only arise in a case where possession has been taken over."
"In the case of Indore Development Authority, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. has been specifically overruled. At the relevant time when the appeal was dismissed by this Court, the issue was not settled, which has been settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority. Under the circumstances, no reliance can be placed upon the decision of the HC in the case of Gyanender Singh and/or dismissal of the appeal against the said order in light of the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority. Even the HC has also not appreciated the reasons why the authority could not take the possession. When the acquisition proceedings were the subject matter of litigation and because of that the authority could not take the possession of the lands in question and as such not taking over the possession cannot be in favour of the landowners.”
The present appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court was quashed and set aside.
Case: Land Acquisition Collector (South), New Delhi and Anr. Vs. Suresh B. Kapur & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8197 Of 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice M.M. Sundresh
Date: December 02, 2022.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
