# 5 S.C.R. 227 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS

- **Citation:** [2016] 5 S.C.R. 227
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016-09-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5811 of2015
- **Bench:** Kurian Joseph, R. F. Nariman
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/5-s-c-r-227-delhi-development-authority-v-sukhbir-singh-others-31335
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Right to Fair Co111pensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisitio11, Rehabilitatio11 and Resettlemem Act, 2013 - s. 24(2) -
Land acquisition pro.ceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed -
Construction of - Held: &ate has no business to expropriate jiwn a
citizen his property if an award has been made and the necessary
steps of taking physical possession of !a11d and payment of
co111pe11sation have not been taken for a period of five years or
more - Section gets attracted if the acquisition proceeding is not
co111pleted within five years after pronouncement of the award, either
because physical possession of the land has not been taken or
because compensation has not been paid, within the said period of
five years - Object of the Act, a11d s. 24 in particulm; is that in case
an award has been made for five years or more, possession ought
to have been taken within this period, or else it is statutorily
presumed that the balance between the citizens right to retain his
own property and the right of the Stale to expropriate it for a public
purpose gets so disturbed as to make the acquisition proceedings
lapse - Section 24(2) uses the expression "dee111ed to have lapsed"
because the Legislature was cognizant of the fact that, in cases
where compensation has not been paid, and physical possession
handed over to the State, vesting has taken place, after which land
acquisition proceediags could be said to have ended - On facts,
DDA was not ready with compensation payable on the day the mvard
was pronounced, but only handed over such compensation to the
Land Acquisition Collector five years after the award was
pronounced - Land Acquisition Collect01; in its turn, did nothing
whatsoever to offer the said sum or pay it to the original owners -
On the contrmy, the authorities moved an application on the eve of
the coming into force of 2013 Act, and by depositing the said a111ount
of compensation paid to it in the year 2002, only in 2013 - Original
227
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
.,
H
228
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 5 S.C.R.
land owners' lands were notified for acquisition in 1961, of which
possession was taken in 2000; after which the compensation offered
was neither tendered nor paid to the land owners - Thus, the
acquisition was non est in accordance with the object sought to be
achieved bys. 24(2) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 31.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, in so
far as the making of award and the payment of compensation to
persons interested, is as follows. On the day fixed, the Collector
after the inquiry that is contemplated under Section 11, has to
make an award which must contain the necessary ingredients
mentioned in Section 11. As soon as the award is made, under
Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector is to
give immediate notice of the award to such of the persons
interested as are not present personally. This provision, when
read with Section 31 of the Act, makes it clear that the statutory
scheme is that the Collector is to tender payment of compensation
awarded by him to the persons who are interested and entitled
thereto, according to the award, on the date of making the award
itself. It is therefore, clear that under the statutory scheme, the
Collector must be armed with the amount of compensation payable
to persons interested as soon as the award is made. Such persons
have to be paid the sum mentioned in the award, it being well
settled that the award is only an offer which may be accepted or
rejected by the claimants. If accepted, whether under protest or
otherwise, it is the duty of the Collector to make payment as
soon as possible after making the award. It is only in a situation
where the persons interested refuse to consent to receive monies
payable, or. there be no person competent to alienate the land, or
if there be any dispute as to title to receive compensation or its
apportionment, is the Collector to deposit the amount of
compensat

## Text

_Characters 0–39,519 of 73,954. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39519 for what follows._

(2016] 5 S.C.R. 227
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
SUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5811 of2015)
SEPTEMBER 09, 2016
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
Right to Fair Co111pensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisitio11, Rehabilitatio11 and Resettlemem Act, 2013 - s. 24(2) -
Land acquisition pro.ceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed -
Construction of - Held: &ate has no business to expropriate jiwn a
citizen his property if an award has been made and the necessary
steps of taking physical possession of !a11d and payment of
co111pe11sation have not been taken for a period of five years or
more - Section gets attracted if the acquisition proceeding is not
co111pleted within five years after pronouncement of the award, either
because physical possession of the land has not been taken or
because compensation has not been paid, within the said period of
five years - Object of the Act, a11d s. 24 in particulm; is that in case
an award has been made for five years or more, possession ought
to have been taken within this period, or else it is statutorily
presumed that the balance between the citizens right to retain his
own property and the right of the Stale to expropriate it for a public
purpose gets so disturbed as to make the acquisition proceedings
lapse - Section 24(2) uses the expression "dee111ed to have lapsed"
because the Legislature was cognizant of the fact that, in cases
where compensation has not been paid, and physical possession
handed over to the State, vesting has taken place, after which land
acquisition proceediags could be said to have ended - On facts,
DDA was not ready with compensation payable on the day the mvard
was pronounced, but only handed over such compensation to the
Land Acquisition Collector five years after the award was
pronounced - Land Acquisition Collect01; in its turn, did nothing
whatsoever to offer the said sum or pay it to the original owners -
On the contrmy, the authorities moved an application on the eve of
the coming into force of 2013 Act, and by depositing the said a111ount
of compensation paid to it in the year 2002, only in 2013 - Original
227
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
.,
H
228
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 5 S.C.R.
land owners' lands were notified for acquisition in 1961, of which
possession was taken in 2000; after which the compensation offered
was neither tendered nor paid to the land owners - Thus, the
acquisition was non est in accordance with the object sought to be
achieved bys. 24(2) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 31.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, in so
far as the making of award and the payment of compensation to
persons interested, is as follows. On the day fixed, the Collector
after the inquiry that is contemplated under Section 11, has to
make an award which must contain the necessary ingredients
mentioned in Section 11. As soon as the award is made, under
Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector is to
give immediate notice of the award to such of the persons
interested as are not present personally. This provision, when
read with Section 31 of the Act, makes it clear that the statutory
scheme is that the Collector is to tender payment of compensation
awarded by him to the persons who are interested and entitled
thereto, according to the award, on the date of making the award
itself. It is therefore, clear that under the statutory scheme, the
Collector must be armed with the amount of compensation payable
to persons interested as soon as the award is made. Such persons
have to be paid the sum mentioned in the award, it being well
settled that the award is only an offer which may be accepted or
rejected by the claimants. If accepted, whether under protest or
otherwise, it is the duty of the Collector to make payment as
soon as possible after making the award. It is only in a situation
where the persons interested refuse to consent to receive monies
payable, or. there be no person competent to alienate the land, or
if there be any dispute as to title to receive compensation or its
apportionment, is the Collector to deposit the amount of
compensation in the reference court. It is only after these steps
have been taken that the Collector may take possession of the
land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government
free from all encumbrances. [Paral0][240-A-F]
1.2 Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 begins with a non-obstante clause and
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH &
OTHERS
covers situations where either no award has been made under
the Land Acquisition Act, in which case the more beneficial
provisions of the 2013 Act relating to determination of
compensation shall apply, or where an award has been made under
Section 11, land acquisition proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as if the said Act bad not
been repealed. [Para 12)(242-G-H; 243-A)
1.3 The picture that emerges on a reading of Section 24(2)
is that the State has no business to expropriate from a citizen his
property if an award has been made and the necessary steps to
complete acquisition have not been taken for a period of five
years or more. These steps include the taking of physical
possession of land and payment of compensation. What the
legislature is in effect telling the executive is that they ought to
have put their house in order and completed the acquisition
proceedings within a reasonable time after pronouncement of
award. Not having done so even after a leeway of five years is
given, would cross the limits of legislative tolerance, after which
the whole proceeding would be deemed to have lapsed. It is
important to notice that the Section gets attracted ifthe acquisition
proceeding is not completed within five years after
pronouncement of the award. This may happen either because
physical possession of the land has not been taken or· because
compensation has not been paid, within the said· period of five
years. A faint submission to the effect that 'or' should be read as
'and' must be turned down for two reasons. The plain natural
meaning of the sub-section does not lead to any absurdity to
replace language advisedly used by the Legislature. Secondly,
the object of the Act, and Section 24 in particular, is that in case
an award has been made for five years or more, possession ought
to have been taken within this period, or else it is statutorily
presumed that the balance between the citizen's right to retain
his own property and the right of the State to expropriate it for a
public purpose gets so disturbed as to make the acquisition
proceedings lapse. Alternatively, if compensation has not been
paid within this period, it is also statutorily presumed that the
said balance gets disturbed so as to free such property from
acquisition. [Para 14)(243-E-H; 244-A-B]
229
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
230
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 5 S.C.R.
1.4 The Standing Order lleshes out Section 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act by insisting that compensation must be paid as
soon as the award is announced, vide paragraph 71. Sufficient
notice must be given to enable all payees to assemble at a place
where they will receive their dues immediately. It is emphasized
by the said paragraph that much trouble will be avoided if the
principle that payment of compensation should be made at the
time of the award is strictly observed. Also, it is important that
the authorities draw in advance a sum sufficient to cover the
probable amount of the award and to make payments. (Para
18U252-G-H; 253-A]
1.5 On facts, it is clear that neither tender, that is offer to
the original claimant nor payment has been made in the manner
provided by Section 31 read with the Standing Order. In the
instant case, the DDA was not ready with compensation payable
on the day the award was pronounced, but only handed over such
compensation to the Land Acquisition Collector five years after
the award was pronounced, that is, in 2002. The Land Acquisition
Collector, in its turn, did nothing whatsoever to offer the said
sum or pay it to the original owners. On the contrary, by moving
an application on the eve of the coming into force of the 2013
Act, and by depositing the said amount of compensation paid to it
in the year 2002 only on 30.12.2013, it is clear that the said
mandatory provision and procedure were not followed by the
authorities. The present original land owners' lands were notified
for acquisition on 24.10.1961, of which possession was taken four
decades later, in 2000; after which the land owners have yet to
see the colour of the paltry amount of compensation offered which
has neither been tendered nor paid to them. In the facts disclosed,
there could not be stronger facts to hold such acquisition 11011 est
in accordance with the object sought to be achieved by s. 2.t (2)
of the 2013 Act. [Para 20]-254-A-E]
1.6 A cursory reading of the paragraphs of the Standing
Orders would show that it is only pursuant to judicial orders that
the State wakes up from its slumber. A notice of award under
Section 12(2) to persons interested can only be issued after money
is received by the Land Acquisition Collector, and that the said
Collector shall not take possession of land unless and until
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH &
OTHERS
compensation amount is received by him. :Further, actual payment
to land owners must be made latest within a period of 60 days. It
is high time that the State realizes that persons whose property
is expropriated need to be paid immediately so as to rehabilitate
themselves. Also, it cannot be forgotten that the amount usually
offered by way of an award of a Land Acquisition Collector under
the 1894 Act is way below the real market value, which is only
awarded and paid years later when the reference proceedings
culminate in judgments of the High Courts and of this Court.
[Para 22][255-H; 256-A-C)
1.7 The difference in phraseology between s. llA of the
1894 Act and s.24(2) of the 2013 Act really clinches the issue in
favour of the land owners. The expression used in s.24(2), namely,
"deemed to have lapsed" is of great significance and differs from
the use of the expression "lapsed" in s.llA. A deeming fiction is
enacted so that a putative state of affairs mus''i\'e imagined, the
mind not being allowed to boggle at the logical consequence of
such putative state of affairs. Even if it is accepted that, post
vesting, acquisition proceedings cannot be said to lapse, yet effect
has to be given to the deeming fiction contained in s. 24(2). In
fact, s.24(2) uses the expression "deemed to have lapsed"
because the Legislature was cognizant of the fact that, in cases
where compensation has not been paid, and physical possession
handed over to the State, vesting has taken place, after which
land acquisition proceedings could be said to have ended. [Para
27][258-E-G]
1.8 It is not correct that physical possession has not been
taken. The Panchnama specifically records that possession of the
land was recovered and handed over to the representatives of
the office of Land and Buildings. The Panchnama is also signed
by all the necessary officers. The piece of land admittedly being
open land is governed by the ratio of Ragltbir Singlt's case. As
the instant case will fall within sub-paragraph (ii) that if the
acquired land is vacant, the act of the State authority concerned
to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be
treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession, thus, the
t>hysical possession of the land can he said to have been taken
on the facts of the instant case. [Paras 28 and 29](259-A-B, E-F;
231
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 5 S.C.R.
A
260-D]
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1.9 Having regard to the law declared in the Pune Municipal
Corporation case, as followed by the other judgments of this Court,
the High Court was correct and the impugned judgment calls for
no interference. [Para 30][260-E]
2015
Pune Municipal Corporation v. H.M Solanki 2014 (3)
SCC 183 : 2014 (1) SCR 783 - relied on.
Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P (1993) 4 SCC
369 : 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 336; Meera Sahni v. Lt.
Governor of Delhi & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 177 : 2008
(10) SCR 1012; Nell' Reviera Coop. Housing Society
v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1996) 1 SCC 731
: 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 169; Sunder " Union of India
(2001) 7 SCC 211 : 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 901; Ba11galore
Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah (2005) 12 SCC
508 : 2008 (10) SCR 1012; Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar
(2015) 10 sec 241 : 2015 (11) SCR 179; Raghbir
Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2012) 1
SCC 792 : 2011 (14) SCR 1113 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 336
referred to
Para 7
2008 (10) SCR 1012
referred to
Para 7
1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 169
referred to
Para 10
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 901
referred to
Para 10
2015 (11) SCR 179
referred to
Para 10
2008 (10) SCR 1012
referred to
Para26
2011 (14) SCR 1113
referred to
Para 28
2014 (1) SCR 783
relied on
Para30
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5811 of
WITH
C. A. No. 8857 of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2014 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 4375 of2014.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH &
233
OTHERS
Amerendra Sharan, Sr, Adv., Ms. Bi nu Tamta, Dhruv Tamta, Ms.
Rachna Srivastava, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. Giri, A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Advs., Mahesh Agarwal, Ms. Devika
Mohan (For E. C. Agrawala), Hemant Malhotra, Sachin Gupta, Ms.
Sukirti, Pankaj Malhotra, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.F.NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P(C) No. 28304 of
2015.
2. These two appeals revisit the question of the correct construction
A
B
of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency c
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act"). We are constrained to
observe that we are hearing these matters despite the fact that the law
has been settled in Pone Municipal Corporation v. H.M. Solanki,
2014 (3) sec 183, which is now stare dee is is in that it has been followed
in a large number ofjudgments1•
D
3. The facts of the present case are as follows. A Notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 241h
October, 1961, stating that the public purpose for acquisition was the
planned development of Delhi. This Notification covered large tracts of
land in and around Delhi. In this case, we are concerned with 33 bighas
E
and 1 biswa ofland in the Vasant Kunj area of New Delhi. This Section
4 Notification was followed by a Notification under Section 6 dated 41h
January, 1969, which in turn, was followed by notices issued under Section
I Bimla Devi & Ors. V. State ofHaryana & Ors. (2014) 6 sec 583 at para 3: Union of
India (UOI) and Ors. ,._Shi,· Raj and Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 564 at para 22: Sree Bala.ii
F
Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (201513 SCC 353 at para 14:
State of Haryana v. Vinod Oil and General Mills 2014 ( 15) SCC 4 l 0 at para 21: Sita
Ram v. State ofHaryana & Anr. (2015) 3 SCC 597 at paras 19. 21: Ram Kishan & Ors
v. State ofHaryana & Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 347 at paras 8. 9. 12: Vela'l:an Kumar"· Union
oflndia & Ors. 2015 ( 4) SCC 325 at· paras 15. 16. 17: Karnail Kaur v. State of Punjab
(2015) 3 SCC 206 at paras 17. 18. 23: Raj iv Choudhrie HUF v. Union of India and Ors.
G
2015 (3) SCALE 203 at para I: Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd., .. Union of India and
Ors. AIR 2015 SC 3186 at para 4: Go\'t. ofNCT of Delhi and Ors,._ Jagjit Singh and
Ors. AIR 2015 SC 2683 at para 3: Karan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
2015 ( 7) SCALE l 91 at para 5: Delhi De,·clopment Authority\'. Sukhbir Singh & Ors.
SLP (CC) No. 5569 of 2015 at page 5: Shashi Gupta and Ors. "· State of Haryana and
Ors. 2016 (5) SCALE 636 al para 5.
H
234
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 5 S.C.R.
9 on 26'h April, 1983. An award relating to the aforesaid land was then
made by the Land Acquisition Collector, New Delhi, only on I 2'h
December, 1997. Possession of the said land, being an open piece of
land, was taken by a Panchnama dated 27'h January, 2000. An affidavit
that has been filed by the Commissioner, Land Management, Delhi
Development Authority in this Court, pursuant to an order of this Court
dated 17th April, 2015, discloses that the requisite compensation for taking
over the said land was deposited by the DOA with the Land Acquisition
Collector only in the year 2002. The said affidavit goes on to state that
since the land had been sold to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the present
case, there was a dispute as to who would receive compensation and
that, therefore, compensation could neither be paid nor tendered.
4. On the eve of the coming into force of the 2013 Act (on I"
January, 2014 ), an application styled as a Petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution oflndia was made by the Land Acquisition Collector in
the High Court of Delhi on 27'h December, 2013, requesting the High
Court of Delhi to accept cheques towards compensation amounts under
the award dated ] 2th December, 1997, stating that non-deposit of
compensation on or before 31" December, 2013 would adversely affect
the acquisition proceedings inasmuch as the proceedings might lapse in
view of the fact that the 2013 Act has been notified to take effect from
I" January, 2014. An order dated 30'" December, 2013 was passed by
the High Court on this application stating that the petition stands disposed
of, recording that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the
land owners, the cheques tendered in each petition would be treated as
a tender to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as on
today i.e. 30th December, 2013.
5. The original land holders thereafter presented a Writ Petition,
being Writ Petition No. 4375of2014 before the High Court of Delhi, on
26th May, 2014, stating that as possession had not been taken and as
compensation had neither been tendered nor paid to the petitioner, the
requisite conditions of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 would be met, and that, as a result, the acquisition proceedings
had lapsed. No affidavit in reply was filed to the aforesaid writ petition.
By the impugned judgment dated ] 8th November, 2014, the High Court
of Delhi allowed the said petition based on the judgment in Pune
Municipal Corporation, and other judgments following the same,
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH &
235
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN. J.]
stating:
. A
"5. Without going into the controversy with regard to physical
possession, this much is clear that the award \Vas made
more than five years prior to the commencement of the
2013 Act and the compensation has also not been paid.
The necessary ingredients for the application of Section
8
24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court
and this court in the following decisions, stand satisfied:
(i) Pune Municipal Coporation and Anr. v. H.M. Solanki,
2014(2)SCC 183,
(ii) Union of India & Ors. V. Shiv Raj & Ors., (2014) 6
sec 564.
(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of
Tamil Nadu & Ors.: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013.
(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: W.P.(C)
No. 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Comt; and
(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors.,
W.P.(C)No. 1393/2014, 10.09.2014.
6. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration
c
D
that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894
E
Act in respect of the subject lands are deemed to have
lapsed. It is so declared."
6. The present appeals have, therefore, been filed by both the
Land Acquisition Collector and the ODA.
7. Shri Amarendra Sharan, Senior Advocate, appearing for the
DOA and Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Advocate,' appearing for the Land
Acquisition Collector, have argued before us that Pune Municipal
Corporation needs to be revisited on essentially two grounds. The first
is that at least as far as Delhi is concerned, it is governed by a Standing
Order of26'h June, 1909 as amended up to date, in which one method of
making payment under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act is by
deposit in the treasury. The distinguishing feature of this case is,
therefore, that unlike in Pune Municipal Corporation, deposit in a
treasury is a recognized mode of making payment for the purpose of
Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, and that this being the case, it is
F
G
H
236
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 5 S.C.R.
clear that Pune Municipal Corporation would not, therefore, apply to
the facts of the present case. A second argument was also made by
both the learned counsels to the effect that Pone Municipal
Corporation did not notice that since possession had been taken in the
facts of the present case, in the year 2000, vesting of the land in the
State had already taken place and the original owner had been divested
of his title. This being the case, the acquisition proceedings being over in
the year 2000, no question of lapse of a proceeding that is already over
can possibly take place in the year2014 after the enactment of the 2013
Act. For the aforesaid proposition, the learned counsel relied upon
Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P., (1993) 4 SCC 369. They
further argued that, in the present case, a subsequent purchaser had
come into the picture by a registered sale deed dated 23'd June, 1992.
This being the case, it is clear that the State was in a dilemma as to who
should be paid compensation, and it is for this reason that compensation
was neither tendered nor paid after the award. For this purpose, they
relied upon Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9
sec 177.
8. The submissions of both the learned counsels were rebutted by
Shri A.K. Sanghi, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the original
owner and Shri V. Giri, appearing on behalfof the subsequent purchasers.
Both the learned counsels emphasized the fact that compensation money
had neither been tendered or paid in accordance with Section 31 of the
Land Acquisition Act. They further went on to state that even possession
had not been taken in accordance with law as no notice had been issued
to the land owners before taking possession and, that therefore, this was
a case which was covered by both contingencies mentioned in Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act. They also argued that it is too late in the day to go
back on the ratio of Pune Municipal Corporation, which squarely
applies on the facts of the present case, as it has now been followed in
a catena of judgments.
9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, it is necessary to
first set out the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In these
appeals; we are directly concerned with Section 11 under which enquiry
and award are to be made by the Collector, Section 12 which states that
the Collector is to give immediate notice of his award to persons interested
who are not present personally when the award is made; Section 16
which deals with the taking of possession and vesting ofland; and Sections
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH &
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.]
31 and 34 which deal with payment of compensation. Accordingly, the
said Sections are set out herein below:
"I 1. Enquiry and award by Collector. - (I) On the day
so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been
adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the
objection (if any) which any person interested has stated
pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the
measurements made under section 8, and into the value of
· the land at the date of the publication of the notification
under section 4, sub-section (I), and into the respective
interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall
make an award under his hand of-
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed
for the land; and
237
A
8
c
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all
D
the persons known or believed to be interested in the land,
or whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether
or not they have respectively appeared before him :
Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under
this sub-section without the previous approval of the
E
appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate
Government may authorize in this behalf:
·
Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate
Government to direct that the Collector may make such
award without such approval in such class of cases as the.
F
appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I),
ifat any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied
that all the persons interested in the land who appeared
before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be
G
included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed
by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may,
without making further enquiry, make an award according
to the terms of such agreement.
H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 5 S.C.R.
A
(3) The determination of compensation for any land under
sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination
of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality
or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of
this Act.
B
( 4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration
Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under subsection (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act.
12. Award·ofCollectorwhen to be final.-(!) Such award
shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as
c
hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as
between the Collector and the persons interested, whether
they have respectively appeared before the Collector or
not, of the true area and value of the land, and the
appointment of the compensation among the persons
D
E
F
G
H
interested.
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award
to such of the persons interested as are not present
personally or by their representatives when the award is
made.
16. 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.
31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in
Court. - (I) On making an award under section 11, the
Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded
by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according
to the award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by
some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the
next sub-section.
(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no
person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any
dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to
the appo1tionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount
of the compensation in the Cou1t to which a reference under
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH &
239
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.]
section 18 would be submfoed:
A
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may
receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency
of the amount:
Provided also that no person who has received the amount
otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any
application under section 18:
Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the
liability of any person, who may receive the whole or ahy
part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay
the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section the Collector
may, with the sanction of the appropriate Government
instead of awarding a money compensation in respect of
any land, make any arrangement with a person having a
limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other
lands in exchange, the remission of land-revenue on other
lands held under the same title, or in such other way as
may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties
concerned.
(4) Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be
construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector
to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in
the land and competent to contract in respect thereof.
34. Payment of interest - When the amount of such
compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking
possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount
awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum
per annum from the time of so taking possession until it
shall have been so paid or deposited:
Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is
not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the
date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of
fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the
date or expiry of the said period of one year on the amount
of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
240
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 5 S.C.R.
deposited before the date of such expiry."
I 0. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, in so far as the
making of award and the payment of compensation to persons interested,
is as follows. On the day fixed, the Collector after the inquiry that is
contemplated under Section I I, has to make an award which must contain
the necessary ingredients mentioned in Section I I. As soon as the award
is made, under Section I 2(2) of the Act, the Collector is to give immediate
notice of the award to such of the persons interested as are not present
personally. This provision, when read with Section 3 I of the Act, makes
it clear that the statutory scheme is that the Collector is to tender payment
of compensation awarded by him to the persons who are interested and
entitled thereto, according to the award, on the date of making the award
itself. It is therefore, clear that under the statutory scheme, the Collector
must be armed with the amount of compensation payable to persons
interested as soon as the award is made. Such persons have to be paid
the sum mentioned in the award, it being well settled that the award is
only an offer which may be accepted or rejected by the claimants. If
accepted, whether under protest or otherwise, it is the duty of the Collector
to make payment as soon as possible after making the award. It is only
in a situation where the persons interested refuse consent to receive
monies payable, or there be no person competent to alienate the land, or
if there be any dispute as to title to receive compensation or its
apportionment, is the Collector to deposit the amount of compensation in
the reference court. It is only after these steps have been taken that the
Collector may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest
absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. The Act
further makes it clear, on a reading of Section 34, that where such
compensation is neither paid or deposited on or before taking possession
of the land, interest is payable at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for
one year and 15 per cent per annum thereafter. This is because a person
becomes divested of both possession and title to his property without
compensation having been paid or deposited, as the case may be. This
statutory scheme has been-adverted to in some of the decisions of this
Court. In New Reviera Coop. Housing Society v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, (1996) I SCC 73 I at para 3, this Court held:
" ... Once the award has been made and compensation has
been deposited or paid under Section 31 of the Act, the Land
Acquisition Officer is entitled to take possession and the
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH &
241
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN; J.]
possession thereby taken stands vested in the State under
A
Section 16 of the Act free from all encumbrances ... "
In Sunder v. Union oflndia, (2001) 7 SCC 211 at para 24, this
Court held:
" ... What the legislature intended was to make the
aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the
hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at
any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his
land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should
enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he
receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into
different components for the purpose of payment of interest
under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the
legislature when that section was framed or enacted."
In Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah,
(2005) 12 SCC 508 at para 4 7, this Court held:
" ... Section 31 contemplates that on making of an award
under Section 11 the Collector shall tender amount of
compensation awarded by him to the μerson interested and
entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay to
them unless prevented by any one or more of the
contingencies mentioned in the subsequent clauses. None
of those contingencies arose in the present case. Thus, once
the amount was tendered and paid the acquisition process
was complete. After making the award under Section 11
the Collector can take possession of the land under Section
16 which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government
free from all encumbrances. In the instant case, after making
the payment in terms of the award, possession was taken.
The acquisition process stood completed .... "
11. Given the fact that the State has been prompt in acquiring land
for public purposes, but tardy in tendering or paying compensation, the
2013 Act came in as a beneficial legislation to the aid, in particular, of
poor farmers whose lands had been acquired under the Land Acquisition
Act but compensation had not been tendered or paid as required under
the said Act. With this object in mind, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
242
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 5 S.C.R.
A
enacted. Section 24 reads as follows:
"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894
shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-( I) ·
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case
of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
B
AcquisitionAct, 1894,-
c
D
E
F
G
H
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land
Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this
Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply;
or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made,
then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions
of the said Land Acquisition Act, as ifthe said Act has not
been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I),
in case ofland acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), where an award
under the said section 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 compensation in accordance with the provisions
of this Act."
12. Section 24(1) begins with a 11011-obsta11te clause and covers
situations where either no award has been made under the Land
Acquisition Act, in which case the more beneficial provisions of the
2013 Act relating to determination of compensation shall apply, or where
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH &
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.]
an award has been made under Section 11, land acquisition proceedings
shall continue under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as ifthe
said Act had not been repealed.
13. To Section 24( I )(b) an important exception is carved out by
Section 24(2). The necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) are as follows:
(a) Section 24(2) begins with a 11011-obstante clause keeping subsection (I) out of harm's way;
(b) For it to apply, land acquisition proceedings should have been
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act;
(c) Also, an award under Section 11 should have been made 5
years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act;
( d) Physical possession of the land, ifnot taken, or compensation,
if not paid, are fatal to the land acquisition proceeding that had been
initiated underthe Land Acquisition Act; ·
( e) The fatality is pronounced by stating that the said proceedings
shall be deemed to have lapsed, and the appropriate Government, if it so
chooses, shall, in this game of snakes and ladders, start all over again.
14. The picture that therefore emerges on a reading of Section
24(2) is that the State has no business to expropriate from a citizen his
property if an award has been made and the necessary steps to complete
acquisition have not been taken for a period of five years or more. These
steps include the taking of physical possession of land and payment of
compensation. What the legislature is in effect telling the executive is
that they ought to have put their house in order and completed the
acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time after pronouncement
of award. Not having done so even after a leeway of five years is
given, would cross the limits of legislative tolerance, after which the
whole proceeding would be deemed to have lapsed. It is important to
notice that the Section gets attracted ifthe acquisition proceeding is not
completed within five years after pronouncement of the award. This
may happen either because physical possession of the land has not been
taken or because compensation has not been paid, within the said period
of five years. A faint submission to the effect that 'or' should be read as
'and' must be turned down for two reasons. The plain natural meaning
of the sub-section does not lead to any absurdity for us to replace language
advisedly used by the Legislature. Secondly, the object of the Act, and
243
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
244
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 5 S.C.R.
Section 24 in particular, is that in case an award has been made for five
years or more, possession ought to have been taken within this period, or
else it is statutorily presumed that the balance between the citizen's right
to retain his own property and the right of the State to expropriate it for
a public purpose gets so disturbed as to make the acquisition proceedings
lapse. Alternatively, if compensation has not been paid within this
period, it is also statutorily presumed that the aforesaid balance gets
disturbed so as to free such property from acquisition.
15. The stage is now setto consider the arguments of the appellants
before us. Before doing so, it is important to first set out what exactly
has been held in the landmark judgment of three Hon'ble Judges (in
which one of us Kurian, J. is a member) in the Pune Municipal
Corporation case. The Comt was concerned with what is the true
meaning of the expression "compensation has not been paid" occurring
in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.