Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11826 OF 2016

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 19207 OF 2015 ] DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY      Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS ISLAMUDDIN & ORS.                Respondent(s)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11827 OF 2016

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 11352 OF 2016 ] GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR.      Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS ISLAMUDDIN & ANR.                Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant – Delhi Development Authority is aggrieved by the Judgment dated 22.12.2014 passed by the  High  Court  of  Delhi,  whereby  the  High  Court declared that the acquisition proceedings in question have lapsed on account of operation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land  Acquisition,  Rehabilitation  and  Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, “2013 Act”).    3. In the case before us, the High Court has taken

Page 2

2

note of the fact that the compensation has never been paid to the owners.  Be that as it may, the main contention urged is that the writ petitioner has no locus  standi to  file  a  Writ  Petition  for  the declaration that the proceedings have lapsed.   

4. Heavy reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Star Wire (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others, reported in (1996) 11 SCC 698.  It was a case  where  the  land  acquisition  proceedings  were initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "1894 Act").  The Notification was issued on 01.06.1976.  Section 6 Declaration was published on 16.02.1977 and the Award was passed on 03.07.1981.   Section  18  Reference  had  also  become final.  Thereafter, the Writ Petition was filed on 21.01.1994.   The  Writ  Petitioner  therein  contended that he was the person who had purchased the property after the Section 4(1) Notification was issued.  In that  context,  it  was  held  that  “Any  encumbrance created  by  the  erstwhile  owner  of  the  land  after

publication  of  the  notification  under  Section  4(1)

does not bind the State if the possession of the land

is already taken over, after the award came to be

passed.”   It was also held that such a purchaser does  not  acquire  any  valid  title  and  in  such

Page 3

3

circumstances,  it  was  held  that  those  subsequent purchasers have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings, much less the Award.

5. Under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, restriction on transfer is only after the Declaration  under Section  6(1) of  the 1894  Act is published.  There is also a prohibition under Section 3 which pertains to transfer of land already acquired by Central Government.  What is relevant is Section 4, which reads as follows :-

“4.  Regulation on transfer of lands in relation  to  which  acquisition proceedings  have  been  initiated  –  No person shall, except with the previous permission in writing of the competent authority,  transfer  or  purport  to transfer by sale, mortgage, gift, lease or  otherwise  any  land  or  part  thereof situated  in  the  Union  Territory  of Delhi, which is proposed to be acquired in  connection  with  the  Scheme  and  in relation to which a declaration to the effect that such land or part thereof is needed for a public purpose having been made  by  the  Central  Government  under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,  the  Central  Government  has  not withdrawn  from  the  acquisition  under section 48 of that Act.”

Page 4

4

6. Section 9 deals with penalty for contravention of the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4.  Therefore, under  the  statutory  scheme,  the  restriction  on transfer  is  only  after  publication  of  Notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act.  Being a special law as far as Delhi is concerned, this will, in no case, prevail over any other general law on restriction on transfer after initiation of acquisition proceedings.    7. In the instant case, the property is situated in Delhi and the contention of the appellant on  locus standi is based on the alleged void transfer after initiation of the land acquisition proceedings.  Such transfers would be void in Delhi only in case the same is made after the declaration under Section 6(1).  In the instant case, the transfer is prior to Section 6(1)  declaration,  though  after  Section  4(1). Therefore,  there  is  no  merit  in  the  contention advanced by the appellant that the writ petitioners did not have any locus standi to challenge the land acquisition.   

8. The  writ  petitioner  approached  the  High  Court contending that neither the compensation was paid nor the  possession  taken  and  hence,  sought  for  a declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.  The

Page 5

5

benefit  under  Section  24(2)  of  the  2013  Act  is available in the event of two circumstances - (i)  The compensation has not been paid though the Award has been passed under the provisions of the 1894 Act prior to  01.01.2014;  (ii)  Despite  passing  an  Award  and payment of compensation, possession had not been taken five  years  prior  to  01.01.2014.   As  far  as  the compensation part is concerned, there is no dispute that the same has not been paid.  Hence, the writ petitioner is entitled to have the declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.  Since the respondent cannot be non-suited on the ground that he has no locus standi, there is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.     9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant is given a period of one year to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land  Acquisition,  Rehabilitation  and  Resettlement Act,  2013  for  initiation  of  the  acquisition proceedings afresh.    10. We  make  it  clear  that  in  case  no  fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period  of  one  year  from  today  by  issuing  a Notification  under  Section  11  of  the  Act,  the

Page 6

6

appellant,  if  in  possession,  shall  return  the physical possession of the land to the owner.  

No costs. CIVIL  APPEAL  NO.  11827  OF  2016    [@SPECIAL  LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 11352 OF 2016

1. Leave granted.   2. In terms of the Judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 11826 of 2016 [@SLP (C) No. 19207 of 2015], as above, this civil appeal is dismissed.     

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]  New Delhi; November 29, 2016.