Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 6, s.4, 5 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –Original land owners entered into agreement to sell with the Respondent No. 1 on 25.9.1990 for the land measuring 28 Bigha 08 Biswa – The said land was in the process of acquisition which was started in 1980 vide notification u/s. 6 and s. 4 of the 1894 Act – The agreement to sell recited that; ‘acquisition process was challenged before the High Court, wherein the entire land was released from the acquisition and the Delhi Administration has not filed appeal and at present the above lands are free from acquisition’ – Land Acquisition Collector had taken possession and paid compensation to the owners, then the compensation has been paid back - The respondent No.1 purchased the land vide sale deed dated 30.8.1991 and 27.2.1991 – Respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition for a declaration that the lands purchased by them are free from and outside the scope of acquisition proceedings, which was dismissed – Special Leave Petition was filed against the order, which was also dismissed – Respondent no.1 filed another Writ Petition after the commencement of the 2013 Act for quashing of the notification u/s 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act, and claimed the Mandamus to handover the peaceful possession of land – In absence of any proof of encashment of cheque (the paid back amount of compensation), the High Court directed the purchaser to pay the amount of Rs. 16,61,774/- and such amount stands paid and held that proceedings stand lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – The Appellant challenged the said order before Supreme Court – Held: The purchaser has no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings – Original land owner filed Writ Petition challenging the notification u/s. 6 of 1894 Act, which was dismissed – Special Leave Petition was filed challenging the order, which was withdrawn – It was the conscious decision of land owner not to continue with SLP – All the objections which were available to the original land owner including the purchaser up to that stage cannot be permitted to be raised again – No right confer on the other land owners who have not disputed the acquisition proceedings on the ground of lack of effective hearing of objections under Section 5A of the Act – Original land owner never filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act, the purchaser cannot seek the relief which was not available even to the original land owner – The purchaser had in fact filed a Writ of Mandamus for delivering the possession of the entire acquired land – Such claim of Mandamus shows that the purchaser is out of possession –Therefore, the condition in Indore Development Authority for lapsing of the acquisition is not satisfied – Appellant directed to refund the amount of Rs.16,61,774/- to the purchaser, without any interest as such deposit was a voluntary offer to deposit.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
1.1 The purchaser has purchased the property knowing fully well that the vendor has not disputed the acquisition proceedings. But on the basis of an order passed in Balbir Singh, it was conveyed and accepted by the purchaser, that the acquisition stands quashed and original land owner was in possession of the land. Since Sudan Singh, affirming the order in Balbir Singh has not been approved by this Court in the three judgments referred hereinabove (Abhey Ram, Gurdip Singh Uban-I and Gurdip Singh Uban-II), no right would accrue to the original land owner or the purchaser. The High Court in the impugned order has not noticed any of the three judgments of this Court in Abhey Ram, Gurdip Singh UbanI and Gurdip Singh Uban-II nullifying the effect of Balbir Singh and instead ordered the purchaser to deposit twice of the amount paid to the original land owner. The condition of payment of compensation in Balbir Singh by the land owners does not survive in view of the fact that such judgment has not been approved by this Court. [Para 38][1220-G-H; 1221-A-B]
1.2 In the present case, as per the purchaser itself, the possession of Part A land comprising in Khasra No. 384 (4-6),
385 (4-6) and 390 (4-6) total measuring 12 Bigha and 18 Biswa was taken by the Appellant and the compensation was paid. The argument is that in terms of the impugned orders of the High Court, the purchaser had deposited Rs.16,61,774/-, therefore, the acquisition stand lapsed. Such deposit is in turn based on the order of the High Court in Balbir Singh. The deposit by the purchaser, either in terms of the impugned order or the order passed in Balbir Singh, is wholly inconsequential. The amount of compensation was paid on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, the compensation of the acquired land paid by the appellant cannot lead to lapsing of the acquisition in terms of Indore Development Authority. The purchaser in its written submissions had made no reference to the later judgments of this Court referred to above. The deposit in terms of the order of the High Court will not lead to lapsing of the acquisition proceedings, such orders being absolutely being illegal. Thus, in respect of Part A land, the purchaser cannot take shelter of the order, which had no legal value and stands nullified. Even otherwise, there could not be any direction to deposit the amount now after more than 25 years. The right which has been lost due to passage of time cannot be revived by virtue of deposit of the amount subsequent to orders of the High Court. [Para 39][1221-C-F]
1.3 The purchaser had in fact filed a Writ of Mandamus for delivering the possession of the entire acquired land. Such claim of Mandamus shows that the purchaser is out of possession. Therefore, the condition in Indore Development Authority for lapsing of the acquisition is not satisfied. Therefore, as per the purchaser, the possession has been taken of the part of the land and compensation has been deposited in respect of the remaining land. Thus, the twin conditions as laid down by this Court are not satisfied. [Para 41][1222-D-E]
1.4 Even otherwise, the stand of the appellant is that the possession of the entire land was taken on 14.7.1987 whereas possession of land measuring 12 Bigha 18 Biswa was handed over to it, whereas the possession of the remaining land measuring 15 Bigha 10 Biswa is with the Government of Delhi. Therefore, the purchaser is not entitled to any declaration of lapsing of acquisition proceedings inter alia on the ground that it has purchased the land after vesting of the land with the State and the possession has been taken of the land measuring 28 Bigha
8 Biswa and the compensation has also been deposited in respect of entire land, though the compensation in respect of land admeasuring 12 Bigha 18 Biswa was disbursed. The remaining amount of compensation was with the Land Acquisition Collector. [Para 42][1222-F-H]
1.5 The order passed by the High Court is set aside. However, the appellant shall refund the amount of Rs.16,61,774/- to the purchaser, without any interest as such deposit was a voluntary offer to deposit, in accordance with law. [Para 44][1225-A]
Ishwar Chand Gupta v. Union of India Writ Petition No. 2736 of 1985 (Delhi HC); Munni Lal v. Lt. Governor of Delhi 1983 SCC OnLine Del 321; Balak Ram Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1987 Del 239; Shri B.R. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. 1988 SCC OnLine Del 367; Balbir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. 1989 SCC OnLine Del 211; Delhi Development Authority v. Sudan Singh (1997) 5 SCC 430; Abhey Ram & Ors. v. Union of India &Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 421 : [1997] 3 SCR 931; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 44; Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 296 : [2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 496; Godfrey Phillips v. Union of India 2005 (125) Delhi Law Times 207; Om Parkash vs. Union of India (2010) 4 SCC 17 : [2010] 2 SCR 447; Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (2008) 9 SCC 177 : [2008] 10 SCR 1012; M. Venkatesh v. Bangalore Development Authority (2015) 17 SCC 1 : [2015] 11 SCR 454; Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Manav Dharam Trust & Anr (2017) 6 SCC 751 : [2017] 4 SCR 232 – referred to.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. 7 (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1; Shyam Nandan Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC
255 : [1993] 1 Suppl. SCR 533; Chairman and
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board & Anr. v. S. Saraswathy & Ors (2015) 8 SCC 723 : [2015] 6 SCR 331; State of Haryana & Anr. v. Devander Sagar & Ors. (2016) 14 SCC 746 : [2015] 13 SCR 1057; Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors (2019) 10 SCC 229 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.