Page 1

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A.3 of 2014

IN  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4284 OF 2011   

  M/S MAGNUM PROMOTERS P. LTD.    ………APPELLANT

Vs.

  UNION OF INDIA & ORS.        ………RESPONDENTS

    J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

1. This I.A. No.3 of 2014 in Civil Appeal No.  

4284 of 2011 is filed by the appellant seeking  

for direction and appropriate orders for disposal  

of this appeal in terms of Section 24(2) of the  

REPORTABLE

Page 2

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    2

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in  

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement  

Act,  2013  (in  short  ‘the  Act  of  2013’).  The  

appellant-land  owner  has  come  to  this  Court  

questioning the correctness of the judgment and  

order dated 16.05.2008 passed by the High Court  

of Delhi in W.P.(C)No. 3695 of 1999, inter alia,  

urging various facts and legal contentions.

2. Brief  facts  of  the  case  are  stated  

hereunder:      

The appellant is the lawful owner of the  

land comprised in Khasra Nos. 750 Min (1-2 ½) and  

751 Min (0-18) situated in the revenue estate of  

Village  Malikpur,  Kohi  alias  Rangpuri,  Tehsil  

Mehrauli  in  the  National  Capital  Territory  of  

Delhi  (for  short  ‘NCT,  Delhi’).  The  Municipal  

Corporation  of  Delhi  (MCD)  vide  its  sanction  

bearing  No.  S.N.406/B/HQ/17/148/AE  (B)  HQ  III  

dated 12.07.1990 gave sanction for constructing  

the farmhouse from common land. On 17.12.1993,

Page 3

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    3

the  Completion  Certificate  with  regard  to  the  

farm house on the land in question was issued to  

the appellant by the MCD.  On 27.06.1996, the  

Government of National Capital Territory issued  

Notification  No.F.9  (12)/95  /L&B/LA/8474  dated  

01.06.1995 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition  

Act, 1894 (in short ’the repealed L.A. Act’) for  

the acquisition of the different parcels of land  

including  an  area  measuring  369  bighas  and  1  

biswa situated in the revenue estate of village  

Malikpur Kohi alias Rangpuri in the NCT, Delhi.  

The  above  said  notification  issued  for  

acquisition  of  the  land  covered  the  land  and  

building owned by the appellant bearing Khasra  

No. 750 for 3 bighas and Khasra No.751 for 3.12  

bighas. The public purpose mentioned in the said  

acquisition notification was for development of  

Vasant Kunj Phase IV.

3. On  24th June,  1997,  a  declaration  under  

Section 6(1) of the repealed L.A. Act was issued

Page 4

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    4

by the NCT, Delhi in respect of the land sought  

to be acquired including the land owned by the  

appellant.   On  9th June,  1999,  notices  under  

Sections 9 and 10 of the repealed L.A. Act with  

regard to the land in question were issued by the  

Land Acquisition Collector to the appellant. On  

15th June,  1999,  the  appellant  filed  a  writ  

petition (c) No. 3695 of 1999 before the High  

Court of Delhi, questioning the legality of the  

aforesaid  acquisition  notifications  published  

under Sections 4 and 6 of the repealed L.A. Act  

urging  various  grounds.  Other  similarly  placed  

land  holders  also  challenged  the  said  two  

notifications before the High Court.  The writ  

petitions were heard together by the High Court  

and  passed  its  judgment  and  order  dated  

16.05.2008  by  dismissing  the  writ  petitions  

holding that the acquisition of land by the NCT,  

Delhi is legal and valid and did not suffer from  

any legal infirmities. Hence, this appeal.

Page 5

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    5

4. It  is  the  case  of  the  appellant  that  

throughout the proceedings before the High Court  

as well as this Court, the appellant has been in  

continuous  physical  possession  of  the  land  

involved in this appeal as it has been protected  

by various orders of “status quo” by the High  

Court as well as this Court with respect to the  

possession of the land in question.

5. Mr. Chandra Uday Singh, the learned senior  

counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  

placed strong reliance upon Section 24(2) of the  

Act of 2013 to substantiate the plea that actual  

physical possession of land has not been taken by  

the Land Acquisition Collector even after 5 years  

being elapsed after the award was passed as on  

the date of the Act of 2013 which came into force  

with  effect  from  01.01.2014.  The  aforesaid  

provision is extracted hereunder:-

“24(2)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained in sub-section (1), in  case  of  land  acquisition

Page 6

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    6

proceedings initiated under the LA  Act, 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 whether an  award  has  been  made  and  compensation  in  respect  of  a  majority of land holdings has not  been deposited in the account of  the beneficiaries specified in the  notifications  for  acquisition  under Section 4 of the said land  acquisition and shall be entitled  to compensation in accordance with  the provisions of this Act.”

6.  Having regard to the facts narrated above  

that neither physical possession of the land nor  

compensation awarded was paid to the appellant,  

it is contended that the acquisition proceedings  

of  the  land  of  the  appellant  are  lapsed.  In  

support of the aforesaid submission he has placed

Page 7

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    7

reliance upon the decisions of this Court in the  

cases of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.  

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors.1,  Union of  

India & others v. Shiv Raj & others2, Bimla Devi  

& Others  v. State of Haryana & Others3, Bharat  

Kumar  v. State of Haryana & Another4 and Sree  

Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of  

Tamil  Nadu  &  others5.  Therefore,  the  learned  

senior counsel has requested for grant of relief  

as prayed for in this application.

 7. The above said provision of the Act of 2013  

quoted above has been interpreted by the three  

Judge Bench of this Court in the case of  Pune  

Municipal Corporation (supra), the relevant paras  

20 and 21 from the case are extracted hereunder:-

“20…….it  is  clear  that  the  award  pertaining  to  the  subject  land  has  been  made  by  the  Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer  more  than  five  

1 (2014) 3 SCC 183 2 (2014) 6 SCC 564 3 (2014) 6 SCC 583 4 (2014) 6 SCC 586 5 2014 (10) SCALE 388

Page 8

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    8

years prior to the commencement of the  2013 Act. It is also admitted position  that  compensation  so  awarded  has  neither  been  paid  to  the  landowners/persons  interested  nor  deposited in the court. The deposit of  compensation amount in the Government  treasury is of no avail and cannot be  held to be equivalent to compensation  paid  to  the  landowners/persons  interested.  We  have,  therefore,  no  hesitation in holding that the subject  land acquisition proceedings shall be  deemed  to  have  lapsed  under  Section  24(2) of the 2013 Act.

21. The  argument  on  behalf  of  the  Corporation  that  the  subject  land  acquisition  proceedings  have  been  concluded  in  all  respects  under  the  1894  Act  and  that  they  are  not  affected  at  all  in  view  of  Section  114(2) of the 2013 Act, has no merit  at all, and is noted to be rejected.  Section 114(1) of the 2013 Act repeals  the  1894  Act.  Sub-section  (2)  of  Section 114, however, makes Section 6  of  the  General  Clauses  Act,  1897  applicable with regard to the effect  of repeal but this is subject to the  provisions  in  the  2013  Act.  Under  Section  24(2)  land  acquisition  proceedings initiated under the 1894  Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to  have lapsed where award has been made  five  years  or  more  prior  to  the

Page 9

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    9

commencement  of  the  2013  Act  and  possession of the land is not taken or  compensation  has  not  been  paid.  The  legal  fiction  under  Section  24(2)  comes  into  operation  as  soon  as  conditions  stated  therein  are  satisfied.  The  applicability  of  Section 6 of the General Clauses Act  being subject to Section 24(2), there  is no merit in the contention of the  Corporation.”

8. Further,  reliance  was  also  placed  on  the  

decision  of  this  Court  in  Sree  Balaji  Nagar  

Residential Association (supra),  wherein it was  

opined that Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does  

not  exclude  any  period  during  which  the  land  

acquisition  proceedings  might  have  remained  

stayed  on  account  of  stay  or  injunction  or  

“status quo” order regarding possession of the  

land granted by any court. It was conclusively  

held that the Legislature has consciously omitted  

to extend the period of five years indicated in  

Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, even if the  

proceedings  had been  delayed on  account of  an

Page 10

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    10

order of stay or injunction granted by a court of  

law or for any reason.  

9. It was further contended that the phrase used  

under  Section  24(2)  is  ‘physical  possession’  

which means actual taking over possession from  

the appellant-land owner by the Land Acquisition  

Collector. In support of this contention he has  

also placed reliance upon two judgments of this  

Court in  Prahlad Singh & Ors.  v. U.O.I & Ors6  

case and  Raghbir Singh   Sehrawat  v.  

State of Haryana and Ors.7.

 10. On the other hand, Ms. Rachna Srivastava,  

the learned counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.  

2  &  3  contended  that  the  Act  of  2013  is  

prospective in operation by virtue of Section 24  

read with Section 114 of the Act of 2013. As  

provided under Section 24, the effect of Section  

6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 the action  

6  (2011) 5 SCC 386 7 (2012) 1 SCC 792

Page 11

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    11

taken by respondent Nos. 2-4 has been saved. She  

submits that by reading the above two Sections of  

the Act, it is clear that Legislature wanted to  

protect  and  save  the  acquisition  proceedings  

initiated  under  the  repealed  L.A.  Act,  

particularly  where  possession  of  the  acquired  

land has been taken. It is submitted that the  

intention of the Legislature in providing Section  

24(2) of Act of 2013 was never to destroy the  

entire acquisition proceedings in acquiring the  

land for the public purpose under the repealed  

L.A. Act, 1894.  

11. It is further contended that it is a well  

settled  position  of  law  that  the  proceedings  

initiated and culminated under the repealed Act  

of 1894 are not to be disturbed by interpreting  

the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of  

2013  to  declare  the  acquisition  proceeding  of  

land as lapsed on account of not taking physical  

possession of the land after 5 year period or not

Page 12

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    12

paying compensation from the date of passing of  

the award.  Under the provisions of the repealed  

L.A. Act of 1894, by operation of Section 16 or  

17 (1) of the Act as the case may be, once the  

possession  of the  acquired land  is taken,  the  

land will be vested with the State Government and  

is  absolutely  free  from  all  encumbrances.  

Thereafter, it is not even open for the State  

Government to restore the land to the land owner  

in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the  

repealed L.A. Act as, it is not permissible in  

law.  The above said legal position is laid down  

by this Court in the cases of  Satendra Prasad  

Jain  v. State of UP8. and  Sanjeevanagar Medical  

and Health Emloyees’ Co-operative Housing Society  

v. Mohd. Abdul Wahab and Ors.9. In the aforesaid  

cases, this Court has held that Section 11(A) of  

the repealed L.A. Act, is not applicable (which  

is analogous to Section 24 of the Act of 2013)  

8   (1993) 4 SCC 369 9 (1996) 3 SCC 600

Page 13

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    13

and  that  in  such  circumstances,  the  only  

consequence provided under the repealed L.A. Act  

is  payment  of  interest  under  Section  34  in  

respect  of  the  acquired  land.  Therefore,  the  

acquisition  of  land  cannot  be  deemed  to  have  

lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, in  

view of the law laid down in the above cases  

referred to supra.  It is further contended by  

the learned counsel for the respondents that the  

above  said  judgments  were  not  brought  to  the  

notice of this Court and could not be considered  

at the time of rendering the decision in the case  

of Pune Municipal Corporation and other cases of  

this  Court  referred  to  supra.  Therefore,  the  

reliance  placed  upon  the  said  cases  by  the  

appellant’s  senior  counsel  do  not  render  any  

assistance in support of its case for grant of  

relief as prayed in the application.

12. It  is  further  contended  by  the  learned  

counsel  that  if  either  of  the  two  negative

Page 14

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    14

conditions mentioned in Section 24(2) of the Act  

of  2013  remains  unfulfilled,  the  acquisition  

proceedings of the land involved in this appeal  

cannot be held to have lapsed as it would defeat  

the purpose of acquisition and intendment of the  

L.A.  Act.   In  other  words,  the  two  negative  

conditions contained in Section 24(2) has to be  

read  conjunctively  and  as  such  both  the  

conditions are required to be fulfilled for the  

purpose of holding the acquisition proceedings as  

lapsed. This aspect of the matter has been dealt  

with by this Court in the case of  The Punjab  

Produce and Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT, West Bengal,  

Calcutta10. It is contended that this case was  

also not brought to the notice of this Court in  

the case of  Pune Municipal Corporation (supra)  

and other cases referred to supra and therefore  

the  said  decisions  require  re-consideration  by  

the larger Bench of this Court.  

10   (1971) 2 SCC 540

Page 15

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    15

13. Further, it is urged that the appellant has  

violated the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of  

the  Delhi  Land  (Restriction  on  Transfer)  Act,  

1972.  It is contended that during the pendency  

of the present appeal the appellant has sold the  

land admeasuring area 12 Bigha, falling in Khasra  

Nos. 745(1-18), 746 (2-14), 747 (4-8) 750 (1-16),  

751  (1-4)  situated  in  the  Revenue  Estate  of  

Village Malikpur Kohi at Rangpuri, Tehsil Vasant  

Vihar, New Delhi along with all necessary rights  

to M/s. DCBC Properties Pvt. Ltd. vide registered  

sale deed No. 6539 dated  1st June, 2012  out of  

which 1 Bigha 2.5 Biswas in Khasra No. 750 and 18  

Biswas in Khasra No. 751 have been acquired under  

acquisition notification. Sections 3 and 4 read  

along  with  Section  9  of  the  Delhi  Land  

(Restrictions  on  Transfer)  Act  of  1972  are  

extracted hereunder for the purpose of answering  

the legal contention urged in this regard:-

“3. Prohibition on transfer of lands  acquired by Central Government -

Page 16

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    16

No person shall purport to transfer by  sale,  mortgage,  gift,  lease  or  otherwise  any  land  or  part  thereof  situated  in  the  Union  territory  of  Delhi which has been acquired by the  Central  Government  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,  1984  or  under  any  other law providing for acquisition of  land for a public purpose.

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.

……

9. Penalty - If  any  person  contravenes  the  provisions of section 3 or section 4,

Page 17

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    17

he  shall  be  punishable  with  imprisonment  for  a  term  which  may  extend to three years or with fine or  with both.”

14. Further  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondents 2 to 4 sought to distinguish the two  

decisions in the case of  Prahlad Singh (supra)  

and Raghbir Singh  Sehrawat (supra) and further if  

this Court had to differ from the decision as per  

Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New Delhi v. Lieutenant  

Governor, Government Of NCT, Delhi And Others11  

the said cases should have been referred to the  

larger Bench, that has not been done.  Therefore,  

reliance placed upon the aforesaid decisions on  

behalf  of  the  appellant  are  of  no  avail  in  

support  of  the  plea  taken  that  physical  

possession of the land is not taken by respondent  

nos.2, 3 and 4. Therefore, she has requested this  

Court for the dismissal of the application filed  

under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 as it has  

no application in the case on hand.    11 (2009) 10 SCC 501

Page 18

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    18

15. We  have  carefully  gone  through  the  legal  

submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf  

of  the  parties  in  respect  of  the  application  

filed by the appellant under Section 24(2) of the  

Act of 2013 with reference to the averments made  

therein  and  the  objection  statement  filed  by  

respondent Nos. 2-4 and response affidavit of the  

Land Acquisition Collector. The official original  

record produced before us for our perusal as per  

our  direction,  discloses  that  the  “Kabza  

Karyavahi”  or  possession  taking  proceedings  of  

the acquired land was started on 27.12.2013. As  

per the record, on 27.12.2013, the taking over of  

possession was done only to the extent of the  

vacant portion of the appellant’s land whereas  

the building structure situated on the land could  

not be taken on that day as the demolition squad  

was not available for respondent No.4. Thus, it  

is  clear  from  the  said  document  available  on  

record  that  the  possession  of  the  building

Page 19

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    19

structure situated on the appellant’s land was  

not  taken  by  him  on  27.12.2013.  As  per  the  

possession memo available in the record, it is  

recorded in the said proceeding that the further  

action for taking over possession in respect of  

the  land  were  to  be  continued  by  the  Land  

Acquisition Collector on 28.12.2013 and there is  

no  record  to  show  as  to  whether  the  action  

continued  on  28.12.2013  in  this  regard.  The  

alleged  taking over  of possession  of the  land  

involved in this appeal was done on 31.12.2013,  

as  per  the  document  annexure  R-1  memo  of  

possession taking possession of the acquired land  

in Award no.07/98-99 is signed by the officers of  

the  Land and  Building Department  of the  third  

respondent;  the  same  was  alleged  to  have  

immediately been delivered to the DDA officials  

i.e. respondent no.5 on the same day. According  

to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the possession of the  

land involved in this appeal has been allegedly

Page 20

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    20

taken by them without any objections being raised  

by the appellant-owner. The above said plea taken  

by them cannot be accepted by us as the same is  

wholly contrary to the factual position regarding  

possession of the land. The question of raising  

objection to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for taking  

possession of the land by the appellant did not  

arise at all for the reason that notice in this  

regard was not issued to it calling upon it to  

handover  possession  of  the  land  to  the  Land  

Acquisition  Collector.  The  reasons  stated  at  

paragraphs  8  and  9  in  the  response  affidavit  

filed by one Mr. Vivek Kumar Tripathi, who is the  

Land  Acquisition  Collector-respondent  No.  4  in  

these proceedings with regard to limits of the  

then  existing  sub-divisions  Tehsils  in  Delhi  

being modified, consequently the revenue estate  

of  the  boundaries  of  village  Malikpur  Kohi  

Rangpuri which previously formed part of District  

South,  due  to  the  said  reorganisation,  sub-

Page 21

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    21

division,  Delhi  Cantonment  and  sub-division,  

Vasant Vihar which were earlier part of District  

of South West have become part of District New  

Delhi. Resultantly, village Rangapuri which was  

part  of  sub-division  Vasant  Vihar  under  the  

jurisdiction  of  Land  Acquisition  Collector,  

South-West  fell  under  the  jurisdiction  of  

District  New  Delhi.  The  notification  dated  

11.09.2012  was  issued  by  the  first  respondent  

creating 11 districts by altering sub-divisions  

Tehsils in Delhi. Land Acquisition of the land  

involved in these proceedings  was transferred  

from  District  South-West  to  the  office  

of respondent no.4 on 21.12.2012 and remaining  

records  on  14.01.2014.  The  above  said  

make  believe  story  narrated  by  the  Land  

Acquisition  Collector  in  his  affidavit  is  a  

deliberate  intention  to  misrepresent  facts  to  

justify the alleged taking over possession of the  

land  on  31.12.2013.  The  aforesaid  explanation

Page 22

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    22

furnished by the Land Acquisition Collector in  

his  affidavit  for  the  alleged  taking  over  

possession of acquired land is wholly unnecessary  

and irrelevant. Therefore, the said explanation  

by him cannot be accepted by us. The averments  

made at para 10 of the response affidavit of Land  

Acquisition Collector are contrary to the “Kabza  

Karyavahi  (possession  taking  over  proceedings)  

dated  27.12.2013 and  the reason  stated in  the  

said memo is that the Land Acquisition Collector  

could  not  take  possession  of  the  building  

structure  situated  on  the  acquired  appellant’s  

land, as the demolition squad was not available  

on that day. The possession of the land taking  

over  document  Annexure  R-1  to  the  response  

affidavit dated 31.12.2013 produced by the Land  

Acquisition Collector in which it is stated that  

the possession of the land of the appellant has  

been taken on 31.12.2013 the said averment in the  

affidavit  is  contradictory  to  the  “kabza

Page 23

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    23

karyavahi” document dated 27.12.2013 available in  

the original record. The contradictory statements  

made  by the  Land Acquisition  Collector in  his  

response affidavit at para 10 cannot be accepted  

by us. The plea sworn by the Land Acquisition  

Collector in the affidavit is a false statement  

of  fact  for  the  reason  that  the  physical  

possession of the land is in fact not taken and  

could not have been taken by the Land Acquisition  

Collector  from  the  appellant  when  the  interim  

order  of  “status  quo”  with  regard  to  the  

possession of land of the appellant was passed by  

this Court on 04.08.2008. The said order being  

well within the knowledge of the respondent Nos.  

2-5 is evident from the record of proceedings of  

this  Court  dated  24.09.2010  as  the  names  of  

learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos.  

1-5  is  shown  in  this  Court’s  record  of  

proceedings.  The further  plea taken  by him  at  

para 10 of the said affidavit that the second

Page 24

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    24

respondent enquired about the litigation status  

in respect of the order passed in relation to  

this  case and  other cases  of village  Rangpuri  

from the 5th respondent-DDA and did not receive  

any  response  from  it  is  once  again  a  false  

statement of fact. Therefore, the office of the  

3rd respondent being unaware of any interim order  

of “status quo” is once again a false statement  

and the same has been deliberately made by him to  

justify his action as stated in the respondent  

affidavit. Hence, the statement of facts sworn to  

at  paras  8-10  are  liable  to  be  rejected  and  

accordingly rejected. Therefore, the plea of the  

Additional  District  Collector/Land  Acquisition  

Collector  and  its  officers  to  have  allegedly  

taken over possession of the land as stated at  

paragraph 10 of the response affidavit is false  

and  it  amounts  to  contempt  of  this  Court  

committed  by  them,  as  they  have  wilfully  

disobeyed the interim order of this Court dated

Page 25

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    25

04.08.2008. Therefore, the plea of taking over  

possession  of land  of the  appellant either  on  

27.12.2013  as  per  the  original  record  or  on  

31.12.2013 as per document Annexure R1 cannot be  

accepted  by  us.  The  respondents  have  

misrepresented  certain  relevant  facts  to  this  

Court  by  filing  the  above  referred  response  

affidavit  with  an  oblique  motive  to  deny  the  

valuable statutory right accrued in favour of the  

appellant under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.  

Hence,  the  conduct  of  respondent  No.  4  and  

officials of respondent No.3 in misrepresenting  

facts is deprecated by us.

16. The  document  of  Annexure  R-1  to  the  

response affidavit has been falsely created by  

respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with a malafide intention  

not only to defeat the statutory right of the  

appellant-land owner accrued in its favour under  

the  provision  of  Section  24(2)  of  the  Act  of  

2013, but it is a clear case of misrepresentation

Page 26

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    26

of facts to this Court with an oblique motive to  

deprive the valuable constitutional right of the  

appellant  to  the  land  involved  in  these  

proceedings.  This  conduct  of  the  ADM/Land  

Acquisition Collector is highly objectionable and  

reprehensible  as  his  action  in  creating  false  

official documents to deny the legitimate right  

accrued in favour of the appellant, which conduct  

of him amounts to breach of trust reposed with  

him  by  the  public  to  discharge  his  public  

functions in the larger interest of public. The  

public  officers  are  required  to  maintain  the  

public record honestly, truly and correctly, the  

Additional District Magistrate cadre indulging in  

such unlawful acts will discredit the credibility  

of the public office from maintaining trust and  

confidence  in the  public office  which is  most  

important  and  necessary  for  the  good  

administration of the second respondent. This has  

not been done in the case on hand by the Land

Page 27

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    27

Acquisition Collector which cannot be appreciated  

by this Court.

17. Further,  the  reliance  is  placed  upon  the  

judgment by the learned senior counsel on behalf  

of the appellant on Prahlad Singh’s case (supra)  

to  show  that  the  alleged  taking  over  of  the  

possession of the land is not legally correct.  

The relevant paragraph reads thus:-

“13. We  have  given  our  serious  thought  to  the  entire  matter  and  carefully  examined  the  records.  Section 16 lays down that once the  Collector has made an award under  Section 11, he can take possession  of  the  acquired  land.  Simultaneously,  the  section  declares  that  upon  taking  possession  by  the  Collector,  the  acquired land shall vest absolutely  in  the  Government  free  from  all  encumbrances. In terms of the plain  language of this section, vesting  of  the  acquired  land  in  the  Government takes place as soon as  possession  is  taken  by  the  Collector  after  passing  an  award  under  Section  11.  To  put  it  differently,  the  vesting  of  land  under  Section  16  of  the  Act  presupposes  actual  taking  of  possession and till that is done,

Page 28

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    28

legal  presumption  of  vesting  enshrined in Section 16 cannot be  raised in favour of the acquiring  authority. Since the Act does not  prescribe  the  mode  and  manner  of  taking possession of the acquired  land by the Collector, it will be  useful  to  notice  some  of  the  judgments in which this issue has  been considered.”

(emphasis supplied by this Court)

At para 19 of the above case, it has been further  

clearly  held  that  the  memo  of  taking  over  

possession of the acquired land must be in the  

presence of independent witnesses, undisputedly  

the same has not been done by respondent Nos. 2,  

3 and 4 in the case on hand. Therefore, in view  

of the principles laid down in the above case,  

the plea of the respondents that as per memo of  

possession dated 31.12.2013 the possession of the  

said land of the appellant was taken and handed  

over to the DDA-respondent no.4 on the same day  

is not accepted by us as it is not done in fact  

and  could  not  have  been  done  in  view  of  the  

interim order referred to supra and also the same

Page 29

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    29

has not been done in the presence of independent  

witnesses as required in law.  

18.  Further,  this  Court  held  at  para  26  in  

Raghuvir Singh Sehravat’s case (supra) as under:-

“26. Bhagwati, J. (as he then was)  and Gupta, J., who constituted the  majority  did  not  agree  with  Untwalia, J. and observed as under:  (Balwant  Narayan  Bhagde  case,  SCC  pp. 711-12, para 28) “28.  …  We  think  it  is  enough  to  state  that  when  the  Government  proceeds to take possession of the  land acquired by it under the Land  Acquisition Act, 1894, it must take  actual  possession  of  the  land,  since all interests in the land are  sought to be acquired by it. There  can  be  no  question  of  taking  ‘symbolical’  possession  in  the  sense  understood  by  judicial  decisions under the Code of Civil  Procedure.  Nor  would  possession  merely on paper be enough. What the  Act  contemplates  as  a  necessary  condition of vesting of the land in  the  Government  is  the  taking  of  actual possession of the land. How  such possession may be taken would  depend on the nature of the land.  Such  possession  would  have  to  be  taken  as  the  nature  of  the  land  admits of……….”

(emphasis laid by this Court)

Page 30

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    30

Thus, in view of the above decisions, this Court  

has clearly laid down the legal principle as to  

how  taken  over  physical  possession  of  the  

acquired  land  means  the  actual  taking  of  

possession  of  it  of  it  from  the  land  

owners/interested persons.

  19. The learned counsel on behalf of respondent  

Nos. 2,3 and 4 sought to distinguish the said  

judgments by placing reliance upon the judgment  

in the case of Sita Ram Bhandar Society (supra)  

wherein this Court opined thus:-  

“28. A  cumulative  reading  of  the  aforesaid  judgments  would  reveal  that  while  taking  possession,  symbolic  and  notional possession is perhaps  not envisaged under the Act but  the manner in which possession  is  taken  must  of  necessity  depend upon the facts of each  case.  Keeping  this  broad  principle in mind, this Court  in  T.N.  Housing  Board v.  A.  Viswam after  considering  the  judgment  in  Narayan  Bhagde  case,  observed  that  while  taking  possession  of  a  large

Page 31

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    31

area of land (in this case 339  acres)  a  pragmatic  and  realistic  approach  had  to  be  taken. This Court then examined  the  context  under  which  the  judgment  in  Narayan  Bhagde  case had been rendered and held  as under: (Viswam case, SCC p.  262, para 9)

9. It is settled law by series  of judgments of this Court that  one  of the  accepted modes  of  taking  possession  of  the  acquired land is recording of a  memorandum or panchnama by the  LAO  in  the  presence  of  witnesses  signed  by  him/them  and  that  would  constitute  taking possession of the land  as  it would  be impossible  to  take physical possession of the  acquired  land.  It  is  common  knowledge  that  in  some  cases  the owner/interested person may  not  be  cooperative  in  taking  possession of the land.

29. In  Balmokand  Khatri  Educational  and  Industrial  Trust v.  State  of Punjab yet  again  the question  was as  to  the  taking  over  of  the  possession of agricultural land  and it was observed thus: (SCC  p. 215, para 4)

4. It is seen that the entire  gamut  of  the  acquisition

Page 32

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    32

proceedings stood completed by  17-4-1976  by  which  date  possession of the land had been  taken.  No  doubt,  Shri  Parekh  has  contended  that  the  appellant still retained their  possession.  It  is  now  well- settled legal position that it  is difficult to take physical  possession  of  the  land  under  compulsory  acquisition.  The  normal  mode  of  taking  possession  is  drafting  the  panchnama  in  the  presence  of  panchas  and  taking  possession  and  giving  delivery  to  the  beneficiaries  is  the  accepted  mode  of  taking  possession  of  the  land.  Subsequent  thereto,  the  retention  of  possession  would  tantamount  only  to  illegal  or  unlawful  possession.”

20.  Further, on the plea taken by the learned  

counsel on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3  

regarding contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of  

the  Act  of  1972  for  transfer  of  the  land  in  

question by the appellant during the pendency of  

the proceedings as it was acquired by the NCT on  

behalf  of  the  Central  Government  by  placing  

reliance on Article 239AA of the Constitution,

Page 33

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    33

with respect to the contention of 1972 Act is  

concerned,  the same  has no  application to  the  

fact situation. In view of the said provision, it  

has  been  contended  by  the  learned  counsel  on  

behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 that the  

land and home subject-matters that are in Delhi  

are  still  with  the  Central  Government  and  

therefore,  acquisition  of  land  by  NCT  is  the  

acquisition made by it on behalf of the Central  

Government. This is far-fetched argument of the  

learned counsel and therefore, the same cannot be  

accepted  by  us  for  the  reason  that  the  

acquisition  notification  available  in  the  

original record would clearly show that the land  

is acquired by the NCT, Delhi and not on behalf  

of  the  Central  Government.  Hence,  the  said  

contention  is  liable  to  be  rejected  and  

accordingly rejected.  

21. Apart from the said reason, even assuming  

for the sake of argument that the Act of 1972 is

Page 34

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    34

applicable, it has been specifically stated by  

the  learned  senior  counsel  that  the  competent  

authority has given permission to the appellants  

to  transfer  the  land  in  favour  of  subsidiary  

company of the appellant. The same can be seen in  

para  5  of  the  sale  deed  produced  before  this  

Court which reads thus:-      

“5.  The vendor have obtained NOC  under  provisions  of  the  Delhi  Land  (Restriction   on  transfer)  Act,  1972  from  the  concerned  department/Tehsildar  Notification  Delhi and shall obtain all such  necessary clearance/permission as  may  be  required  for  effectively  transferring  and  conferring  the  title on the Vendee.”   

Therefore, the provisions of Sections 3, 4, and 9  

have no application to the fact situation on hand  

and there is no substance in this plea of the  

respondent and the same is rejected.

22. In view of the aforesaid findings and reasons  

recorded  by  us,  the  prayer  made  in  this  

application  is  allowed.  The  acquisition

Page 35

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    35

proceedings in respect of the appellant’s land  

have  lapsed.  Consequently  the  appeal  is  also  

allowed  quashing  the  acquisition  proceeding  

notifications in respect of the appellant’s land.  

No costs.  

                                                    …………………………………………………………J.                          [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

                        …………………………………………………………J.                           [C. NAGAPPAN]

New Delhi,                                 November 27 ,2014

Page 36

I.A.No.3 of 2014 in C.A. No.4284 of 2011                    36

ITEM NO.1C-For Judgment     COURT NO.9           SECTION XIV

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                      RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

I.A. No. 3 in Civil Appeal  No(s).  4284/2011

M/S MAGNUM PROMOTERS P.LTD.                   Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                         Respondent(s)

Date : 27/11/2014 This appeal was called on for JUDGMENT  today.

For Appellant(s)     Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan,Adv.

For Respondent(s)    M/s Saharya & Co.

                    Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv.

                    Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv.

                    Ms. Sushma Suri,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Gopala Gowda pronounced the  

judgment  of  the  Bench  comprising  His  Lordship  and  

Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Nagappan.

I.A. No. 3/2014 is allowed.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

     (VINOD KUMAR)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

   (Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)