Delhi Development Authority Versus Reena Suri And ORS.

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 396 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.

REENA SURI AND ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 4544 of2016 etc.) APRIL 28, 2016 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss. JI and 16 - Land acquisition proceedings under the Act - Award passed u/s. I I - But possession C of the land not taken by the State - Whether such proceedings would lapse - Held: Such proceedings would lapse in view of s. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Jn view of s.16 of 1894 Act, passing of award by itself would not mean that the land automatically vested with the Government - Right to Fair D Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2).

Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair E Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and culminating in award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act would lapse, in case the possession after passing of the award has not been taken within five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 F Act. Under.Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the proceedings would also lapse in case the compensation has not been paid to the owners of the land before 01.01.2014 (the date, the 2013 Act came into force. [Para 3) [399-E-F)

2. Under s. 16 of Lar.d Acquisition Act, -1894, once an award G has been made by the Collector under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, the Collector .has to take possession of the land and only thereupon, the land will vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, passing of the award by itself will not enable the appellant to take a contention that the land has

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. REENA SURI automatically vested with the Government on passing of the award. [Para 6) (400-A-C)

3. In the present cases,' the land bas not been taken possession of by the Collector within five years or more prior to 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into force. The High Court bas rightly held that the land acquisition proceedings bas lapsed in view of Section 24 of 2013 Act. [Paras 2 and i] [398-B-F; 400.. C-D) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4544 of2016 From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2015 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 6698 of2014. WITH C. A. NOS.

4545, 4546, 4547, 4548, 4549, 4550, 4552, 4553, 4554, 45S5, 4556, 4557, 4558, 4559, 4560, 4561, 4562, 4563, 4564, 4565, 4566, 4567, 4568, 4569, 4570, 4571, 4572, 4573, 4574, 4575, 4576, 4577, 4578, 4579, 4580, 4581, 4582, 4583, 4584, 4585, 4586, 4587, 4588, 4589, 4590, 4591, 4592, 4593, 4594, 4595, 4596, 4597, 4598, 4599, 4600 AND 460 I of2016 V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Sanchar Anand, AAG, Anil Kaushik, Ro hit Singh, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, E. C. Agrawala, Cagan Gupta, Govind Goel, Ms. Garima Prashad, G. Balaji, Ms. Shiva Vijaya Kumar, Apoorv Singhal, Devendra Singh, Shantanu Krishna, Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh B. Saharya, (for M/s Saharya & Co;); Ashwani Kumar, Rahul Bhatia, Manish Kumar, Ms. Divya Roy, S. Anand, Devender Singh, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Nikita Shrivastava, Dhruv Tamta, Shantanu Sagar, Advs., with them for the Appellant.· Ms.

Pinky Anand, ASG, A.K. Sanghi, Ajit Sinha, Ravinder Sethi, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Advs. R.K. Rathore, Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Mrs. Samta P. Mis.hra, S.A. Haseeb, Umesh Babu Chaurasia, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, R.S. Nagar, Ajay Kumar Singh, Harish Kumar K., Shailender Saini, SarfrazA. Siddiqui, Ms. Satya Siddiqui, R.K. Mohanty, Ranjit Kr. Jha, D.S. Mahra, Manish K. Bishnoi, Venkat Poonia, Raj iv Kumar Ghawana, Puneet Sharma, Ajay Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Mahesh Agrawal, Ankur Saigal, Rishabh Parikh, VivekJain, Ms. Devika Mohan, Ms.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.

Diwan, Ms. ti Sharma, Ms. C. Mandakini, Ms. Priya Puri, Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Setu Niket, Priyanjali Singh, B.S. Mathur, Bharat Bhushan Jain, S.Anand, ApoorvaSinghal, Devender Singh, Kaushik Poddar, Rajat Mathur, Ms. Smita Maan, Vishal Mann, Naresh Maan, Satyawan Rathi, Bankey Bihari, Shiv Kumar Suri, Shikhil Suri, S.K. Rout, Sumeer Sodhi, Varun Tankha, Amitabh Sinha, Arjun Nanda, Praval Arora, T. Mahipal, Anil Kaushik, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Anurag Singh, Harish K. Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Neeraj K. Sharma, Neeraj Shekhar, Animesh Singh, Ashutosh Thakur, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh, Manoj Kumar Sharma, N.S. Vasisht, Vishal Singh, Ms. Jyoti Kataria, M.P. Bhargava, Bharat Beriwal, Raj iv Ranjan Dwivedi, Harish Pandey, S.K. Verma, Subhash Kamboj, Abhimanyu, Sum it Bansal, Ateev Mathur, Ms. Richa Oberoi, A.P.S.

Saigal, Vikas Kumar, Atul Kumar, R.K. Rathore, ShadmanAli,Ajay Kr. Singh, Harish Kr. Khinchi, Ms. Kiran Bharadwaj, Ms. Gunwant Dara, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ranjeet Kumar Jha, Rohtas Nagar, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Ms. Monika, Anshuman Srivastava, A. Deb Kumar, P. K. Biswal, Advs., with them for the Respondent~. _. __ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KURIAN, J. I. Leave granted.

2. All these appeals have been filed by the Delhi Development Authority, aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court of Delhi. In the impugned Judgment, the High Court has taken the stand that the land acquisition initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and culminating in passing of awards on different dates, has lapsed in view of Section 24 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, F - "2013 Act") in respect of the land covered by these appeals. Section 24 of the Act reads as follows:- "24. Land acquisition process under Act No.

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. REENA SURI [KURIAN, J.] the said Land Acquisition Act, as ifthe said Act has not been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section ( 1 ), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, where an award under the said seetion 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the ·said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:

Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority ofland holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to eompensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act"

3. It may be seen that under Section 24(2) of the Act, the proceedings initiated under the LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 and culminating in award under Section 11 of the said Act would lapse in case the possession, after passing of the award has not been taken within five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act (9 of2014). This Act came into force on 01.01.2014. Under Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, the proceedings would also lapse in case the compensation has not been paid to the owners of the land before 01.01.2014. However, it is made clear under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that despite such ]apse, it will be open to the appropriate Government to initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.

4. Sh. Vishnu Saharya, learned counsel appearing forthe appellantDelhi Development Authority, has submitted that once an award has been passed, the property vests in the Government and, therefore, there is no lapse. We are afraid, the contentions raised by him cannot be appreciated.

5. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 reads as follows:-

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 2 S.C.R.

"Power to take possession - When the Collector has made an · award under Section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government]], free from all encumbrances."

6. Under the above provision, once an award has been made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, the Collector has to take possession of the land and only thereupon, the land will vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, passing of the award by itself will not enable the appellant to take a contention that the land has automatically vested with the Government on passing of the award.

7. It is not in dispute that in all these cases, the land has not been taken possession of by the Collector within five years or more prior to 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into force.

8. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in these appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

No costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed.