Writ petition seeking a declaration that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court held that compensation had been paid and possession taken, and that stale claims cannot be revived under Section 24(2); it declined to defer hearing and dismissed the petition on laches and on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~46
KAPOOR SINGH AND ORS. ...Petitioners Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash Gupta, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ... Respondents Through: MrVishal Mahajan, Senior Panel for UOI. Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for LAC/L&B.
Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Standing Counsel DDA with Ms. Gauri Chaturvedi, Advocate.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
O R D E R % 20.02.2019
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court ma graciously be pleased to:
(a) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring acquisition proceedings w.r.t. land of petitioners measuring 66 bigha 06 biswa (as mentioned in Annexure P-1) including those of their predecessors [whose names have borne out in the Award No.l7/DC(NW)/20032004 dt. 22.10.2003 (Annexure P-6) bearing khasra numbers as
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 1 of 21
mentioned in Annexure No.P-1] as deemed to have lapsed u/s Section 24 (2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;and/or
(b) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Notification No. F.l 1(56)/2001/L&B/LA/14043 dt.07.12.2001 issued u/s 4, Notification No. F.10(30)/2001/L&B/LA/16231 datedl6.01.2002 issued u/s 6 of Land Acquisition Act and Award bearing No.l7/DC(NW)/2003-2004 dt. 22.10.2003 w.r.t. land bearing khasra numbers as mentioned in Annexure No.P-1 measuring total 15 bigha 5 biswa (as mentioned in Annexure P-1) situated in Revenue Estate of Village-Sanoth, P.O. Narela, North-West, N.C.T. of Delhi for being violative of Articles 14 & 300-A of the Constitution of India as well as provisions contained Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; and/or
(c) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding Respondents to enter the names of petitioners including their predecessors as mentioned in Annexure P-1 [whose names have borne out in the Award No.l7/DC(NW)/2003-2004 dt. 22.10.2003 (Annexure P-6)] in the relevant revenue records after declaration of these acquisition proceedings as deemed to have lapsed u/s Section 24 (2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 w.e.f 01.01.2014;and/or
(d) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondent No. l to extend benefit of Section 101. of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 over to all land acquisitions made earlier under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the extent the State is duty bound to return the land so acquired if the same remained unutilized u/s 101;and/or
(e) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents, their officers, agents, representatives or anybody
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 2 of 21
claiming through them from entering the name of govt. in the revenue records and also restraining them from dispossessing the petitioners from their settled possession over the land in dispute and changing the nature, title and character of plot in dispute falling in revenue estates of Village-Sanoth, P.O. Narela, North-West, N.C.T. of Delhi bearing Khasra number as mentioned in Annexure P-1; and/or
(f) Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring possession memo dated 19.12.2003 (Annexure P-3) as being illegal, fabricated, concocted for being prepared without following due process of law including observance of principles of natural justice; and/or
(g) Award the costs of writ petition in favour of petitioners;
(h) pass any other/further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.."
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 3 of 21
Collector („LAC‟) on 22nd October 2003.
“That the petitioners being on road for having left on the verge of starvation with no source of income have although withdrawn the compensation which they are ready to return on declaration of acquisition proceedings as lapsed.”
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 4 of 21
“such statement ought not to have been taken literally. These phrases are normally used to show the pitiable condition of farmers agitating all over India committing suicides in large numbers.”
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 5 of 21
the outset submitted that all the five issues decided by the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 have been referred to a larger Bench by the order passed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma (2018) 3 SCC 405 . In particular he submitted that the issues regarding the normal mode of taking physical possession in land acquisition cases in terms of the law explained in Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lai Agarwal ( supra ), the tendering of compensation under Section 31(1) of the LAA as well as the proposition that Section 24 of the 2013 Act does not revive „bald or staled claims‟ have all been referred to the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 6 of 21
Application Diary No.28242/2018 ( Yogender Kumar v. Union of India ) in which the order reads: “List the matter after judgment is delivered in SLP(C) 9798-99 of 2016" (i.e. Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma ). According to him, the aforementioned one line order should be understood as the Supreme Court having continued the stay order passed in State of Haryana v. M/s. G. D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Ltd. ( supra ).
“22. In order to appreciate the above submission it requires to be noted that the three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 interpreted Section 24 of the 2013 Act. One of the issues considered was whether the deposit of compensation in the Government treasury, when the land owner refuses to accept it would amount to tendering compensation for the purpose of Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act. This was answered in the negative in the said decision.
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 7 of 21
proceedings are kept pending by the land owners by filing successive petitions in which interim orders have been passed. In the said decision the Court doubted the correctness of the decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC 353 as regards exclusion of the period covered by the interim orders from the calculation of the period of five years under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. Accordingly, the matter was referred to a larger Bench.
“3.1 (i) What is the meaning of the expression „paid'/„tender' in Section 24 of the Act of 2013 and section 31 of the Act of 1894? Whether non-deposit of compensation in court under section 31(2) of the Act of 1894 results into a lapse of acquisition under section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. What are the consequences of non-deposit in Court especially when compensation has been tendered and refused under section 31(1) of the Act of 1894 and section 24(2) of the Act of 2013? Whether such persons after refusal can take advantage of their wrong/conduct?
3.2 (ii) Mode of taking physical possession as contemplated under section 24(2) of the 1894 Act.?
3.3. (iii) Whether section 24 of Act of 2013 revives barred and stale claims?
3.4 (iv) Whether the conscious omission referred to in paragraph 11 of the judgment in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. 5 State of Tamil Nadu [(2015) 3 SCC 353] makes any substantial difference to the legal position with regard to the exclusion or inclusion of the period covered by an interim order of the Court for the purpose of determination of the applicability of Section
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 8 of 21
24 (2) of the 2013 Act?
3.5 (v) Whether the principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit”, namely act of the Court should not prejudice any parties would be applicable in the present case to exclude the period covered by an interim order for the purpose of determining the question with regard to taking of possession as contemplated in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
“Q. No. I: 218.l. The word „paid‟ in section 24 of the Act of 2013 has the same meaning as „tender of payment‟ in section 31(1) of the Act of 1894. They carry the same meaning and the expression „deposited‟ in section 31(2) is not included in the expressions „paid‟ in section 24 of the Act of 2013 or in „tender of payment' used in section 31(1) 194 of the Act of 1894. The words „paid'/tender' and „deposited' are different expressions and carry different meanings within their fold. In section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 in the expression „paid,' it is not necessary that the amount should be deposited in court as provided in section 31(2) of the Act of 1894. Non-deposit of compensation in court under section 31(2) of the Act of 1894 does not result in a lapse of acquisition under section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Due to the failure of deposit in court, the only consequence at the most in appropriate cases may be of a higher rate of interest on compensation as envisaged under section 34 of the Act of 1894 and not lapse of acquisition. Once the amount of compensation has been unconditionally tendered and it is refused, that would amount to payment and the obligation under section 31(1) stands discharged and that amounts to discharge of obligation of payment under section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 also and it is not open to the person who has refused to accept compensation, to urge that since it has not been deposited in court, acquisition has
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 9 of 21
lapsed. Claimants/landowners after refusal, cannot take advantage of their own wrong and seek protection under the provisions of section 24(2).
Q. No. II:- 218.2 . The normal mode of taking physical possession under the land acquisition cases is drawing of Panchnama as held in Banda Development Authority (supra).
Q. No. III :- 218.3. The provisions of section 24 of the Act of 2013, do not revive barred or stale claims such claims cannot be entertained.
Q.No. IV:- 218.4. Provisions of section 24(2) do not intend to cover the period spent during litigation and when the authorities have been disabled to act under section 24(2) due to the final or interim order of a court or otherwise, such period has to be excluded from the period of five years as provided in section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. There is no conscious omission in section 24(2) for the exclusion of a period of the interim order. There was no necessity to insert such a provision. The omission does not make any substantial difference as to legal position.
Q. No. V:- 218.5. The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit is applicable including the other common law principles for determining the questions under section 24 of the Act of 2013. The period covered by the final/ interim order by which the authorities have been deprived of taking possession has to be excluded. Section 24(2) has no application where Court has quashed acquisition.”
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 10 of 21
conclusions qua Questions II to V, dissented on Question I only to the extent on whether Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was per incuriam. According to the learned Judge, the correctness of that decision, rendered by the three Judge Bench could be considered only by the larger Bench.
“We unanimously agree to the answers given to all the questions i.e. (i) to (v), except to the aspect decided by majority whether Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki 2014 (3) SCC 183 is per incuriam or not. As the majority has taken the view that it is per incuriam, it is declared to be per incuriam. The questions referred stand answered in terms of majority judgment. Hence, ordered accordingly.”
“we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate if in the interim and pending a final decision on making a reference (if at all) to a larger Bench, the High Courts be requested not to deal with any cases relating to the
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 11 of 21
interpretation of or concerning Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Secretary General will urgently communicate this order to the Registrar General of every High Court so that our request is complied with.”
“Vide order dated 18.04.2016 Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma , this matter was directed to be listed after the decision in SLP(Civil) No.10742 of 2008. The same has since been decided in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 . A copy of order dated 21.02.2018 in SLP (C) No. 5552/2018 CC. No.8453/2017 State of Haryana v. G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited has been shown to this Court by Mr. Rohatgi, Senior Advocate. We are of the view that having regard to the nature of the issues involved in the matter, the issues need to be resolved by a larger Bench at the earliest. These matters may be placed before the appropriate Bench tomorrow i.e. 23 February, 2018, as per orders of Hon‟ble the Chief Justice of India.”
“8. Keeping in view the aforesaid orders, it was thought appropriate by the Chief Justice of India to constitute a
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 12 of 21
Constitution Bench to deal with all the issues in an apposite manner, and that is how these matters have been placed before us.
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 13 of 21
Corporation ( supra ) and Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra ( supra ) and all issues incidental thereto have been referred to the Constitution Bench? In this context it requires to be noted that although several questions were framed in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra ( supra ), it is only on Question I, viz., on whether the deposit in the RD Account would amount to having tendered compensation for the purposes of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, that there was a difference of opinion between the view expressed in the two decisions viz., Pune Municipal Corporation ( supra ) and Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra ( supra ).
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 14 of 21
larger Bench of the Supreme Court. This question, therefore, was not the subject matter of reference before the Constitution Bench.
“128. In our considered opinion section 24 cannot be used to revive the dead or stale claims and the matters, which have been contested up to this Court or even in the High Court having lost the cases or where reference has been sought for enhancement of the compensation. Compensation obtained and still it is urged that physical possession has not been taken from them, such claims cannot be entertained under the guise of section 24(2). We have come across the cases in which findings have been recorded that by which of drawing a Panchnama, possession has been taken, now again under Section 24(2) it is asserted again that physical possession is still with them. Such claims cannot be entertained in view of the previous decisions in which such plea ought to have been raised and such decisions would operate as res judicata or constructive res judicata. As either the plea raised is negatived or such plea ought to have been raised or was not raised in the previous round of litigation. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 does not supersede or annul
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 15 of 21
the court‟s decision and the provisions cannot be misused to reassert such claims once over again. Once Panchnama has been drawn and by way of drawing the Panchnama physical possession has been taken, the case cannot be reopened under the guise of section 24 of Act of 2013.
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 16 of 21
but even those which have been contested earlier and where the land owners have lost the case. Section 24(2) was also held not to revive claims that have been “lost/negatived”, “become barred, either due to inaction or otherwise by operation of law”. Therefore, inaction with regard to claims for several years would also attract the principle of laches and bar the invocation of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act.
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 17 of 21
reference, the said decision in the D.K.Trivedi & Sons v. Ambalal Manibhai Patel (supra) is distinguishable on facts.”
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 18 of 21
be held that actual physical possession of the lands was not taken by the LAC. As noticed in Kartar Singh v. Union of India ( supra ), the assertion by the Petitioners that they are still cultivating the lands in question can lead only to one inference viz., that they have re-entered upon the land after physical possession was taken over by the LAC and handed over to the DDA. The observation in Kartar Singh v. Union of India ( supra ) that „Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act will not come to the aid of a person who knowingly encroaches upon the land that is already vested in the State upon passing of the award‟ will apply on all fours to the case in hand.
“The fact that the petitioners continued to sow crops on the land even after the land had vested in the State was in that view of the matter wholly inconsequential. As a matter of fact, any such cultivation could at best be
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 19 of 21
deemed to be permissive and the land for that purpose deemed to be in trust with those cultivating the same. We are supported in that view by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Nagin Chand Godha v. Union of India and Ors. 2003 (70) DRJ 721 where the Court has while dealing with a similar contention observed:
The Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer Jal Nigam Central Stores Division U.P. v. Suresha Nand Juyal, (1997) 9 SCC 224 , also considered the question of symbolic possession taken by the Officers. Therefore, in view of what is stated hereinabove, it is not possible for this Court to agree with the submission of the learned Counsel that possession is not taken. Suffice it to say that after symbolic possession is taken, if the petitioner is enjoying the possession, he is enjoying the possession as a trustee on behalf of the public at large and that by itself cannot be considered to be a ground to contend that possession is not taken. It is the duty of the person who is occupying the property to look after the property and to see that the property is not defaced or devalued by himself or by others. He cannot subsequently come to the Court to say that actual possession is not taken and therefore he should be protected and land be denotified.
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 20 of 21
that the Award in the present case was passed on 22nd October 2003. Here it is contended by Mr. Gupta that the cause of action of Petitioners arose only on 1st January 2014, the date on which the 2013 Act came into force.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
SANJEEV NARULA, J.
FEBRUARY 20, 2019/ tr
W.P.(C) 418/2015 Page 21 of 21
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act where compensation was paid and physical possession taken.
Whether the High Court should defer hearing the petition pending the Constitution Bench reference on the interpretation of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Balwant Narayan Bagde v. M. D. BhagwatReferred¶28
Balwant Narayan Bagde v. M. D. Bhagwat (1976) 1 SCC 700 · Who else cites this
Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lai AgarwalReferred¶28
Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lai Agarwal (2011) 5 SCC 394 · Who else cites this
Prahlad Singh v. Union of IndiaReferred¶28
Prahlad Singh v. Union of India (2011) 5 SCC 386 · Who else cites this
Velaxan Kumar v. Union of IndiaReferred¶28
Velaxan Kumar v. Union of India (2015) 4 SCC 325 · Who else cites this
Indore Development Authority v. ShailendraRelied on¶40
Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 · Who else cites this
Indore Development Authority v. Shyam VermaReferred¶40
Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma (2018) 3 SCC 405 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. M/s.G.D.Goenka Tourism Corporation Ltd.Referred¶41
State of Haryana v. M/s.G.D.Goenka Tourism Corporation Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 585 · Who else cites this
Yogender Kumar v. Union of IndiaReferred¶43
Yogender Kumar v. Union of India
Kartar Singh v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶44
Kartar Singh v. Union of India
Mool Chand v. Union of IndiaFollowed¶44
Mool Chand v. Union of India
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal SolankiReferred¶46
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 · Who else cites this
Yogesh Neema v. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶47
Yogesh Neema v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 6 SCC 387 · Who else cites this
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil NaduReferred¶49
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC 353 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana v. Maharana Pratap Charitable TrustReferred¶78
State of Haryana v. Maharana Pratap Charitable Trust
Mahavir v. Union of IndiaReferred¶94
Mahavir v. Union of India
D.K.Trivedi & Sons v. Ambalal Manibhai PatelDistinguished¶104
D.K.Trivedi & Sons v. Ambalal Manibhai Patel
Mahadeo v. State of UPReferred¶112
Mahadeo v. State of UP (2013) 4 SCC 524 · Who else cites this
Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal TransportReferred¶112
Sulochana Chandrakant Galande v. Pune Municipal Transport (2012) 1 SCC 138 · Who else cites this
Dr. Rajbir Solanki v. Union of IndiaReferred¶112
Dr. Rajbir Solanki v. Union of India 148 (2008) DLT 363 (DB) · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Kapoor Singh and Ors.
Union of India and Ors.
S. Muralidhar
Sanjeev Narula
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
