Page 1

1

NON REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10954 OF 2014 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No. 16578 of  2007)

  VELAXAN KUMAR                  ………APPELLANT

Vs.

  UNION OF INDIA & ORS.             ………RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Leave granted.

2. I.A.  No.7  of  2014  has  been  filed  by  the  

appellant Velaxan Kumar seeking applicability of the  

beneficial provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right  

to  Fair  Compensation  and  Transparency  in  Land  

Acquisition,  Rehabilitation  and  Resettlement  Act,  

2013  (in  short  ‘the  Act  of  2013’)  for  issuing  a

Page 2

2

direction  and  pass  an  order  for  disposal  of  this  

appeal in terms of the same. The appellant-land owner  

has come to this Court questioning the correctness of  

the common judgment and order dated 09.07.2007 passed  

by  the  High  Court  of  Delhi  in  the  writ  petitions  

filed  by  the  land  owners  including  the  appellant  

herein,  wherein,  the  High  Court  has  dismissed  the  

same.  

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:      

The  appellant  is  the  owner  of  the  plot  

measuring 1278 square yards out of Khasra No.62/19/1  

located  in  the  area  Village-Prehlad  Pur  Bangar,  

National  Capital  Territory  of  Delhi  (hereafter  

referred to as ‘the disputed land’) on the basis of a  

sale  deed  executed  by  Kaptan  Singh  as  being  the  

attorney  of   the   land   owners  in  his favour on  

02.05.1989  for  a  total  consideration  amount  of  

Rs.40,000/-.  

4. The  Notification  No.  F-10(29)/96/L&B/LA/11394  

under Section 4 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act,  

1894  (for  short  ‘the  L.A.  Act’)  was  issued  on

Page 3

3

27.10.1999 by the Land Acquisition Collector in the  

name of Respondent No.1.  

5. The appellant and other land owners objected to  

the issuance of notification by invoking an emergency  

clause under Section 17 of the L.A. Act as his land  

is built up and falls within 50 meters of village-

Abadi  of  Lal  Dora,  hence  his  land  should  be  

exempted/denotified  from acquisition as per policy  

of the Government dated 02.12.1998. Thereafter, the  

notification  was  issued  under  Section  6  read  with  

Section 17 of the L.A. Act on 03.04.2000 in respect  

of the land sought to be acquired including the land  

owned by the appellant.  

6. The  Land  Acquisition  Collector,  Kanjhawala  

passed  an  award  on  03.04.2002  in  respect  of  the  

disputed land of village-Pansali.

7. The appellant challenged the said award by the  

Land Acquisition Collector by way of filing a writ

Page 4

4

petition (W.P. (c) No.5528 of 2001) in the High Court  

of Delhi which was dismissed by the High Court vide  

its common judgment and order dated 09.07.2007.  

8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed this  

appeal by way of special leave in this Court. This  

Court issued notice and also granted interim stay of  

the order passed by the High Court vide its order  

dated 17.09.2007.  

9. It has been contended by the learned counsel  

for the appellant that during the pendency of this  

appeal,  the  Parliament  has  repealed  the  L.A.  Act,  

1894 and in its place enacted the Act of 2013 which  

came into force with effect from 01.01.2014 and thus  

seeking  applicability  of  beneficial  provision  of  

Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.  

10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the  

appellant that in the light of Section 24(2) of the  

Act of 2013, the entire land acquisition proceedings  

qua the land of the appellant shall be deemed to have  

lapsed as admittedly the Award in the present case on

Page 5

5

hand was rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector  

on 03.04.2002, i.e. more than 5 years prior to the  

commencement  of  the  Act  of  2013,  but  physical  

possession of the disputed land of the appellant has  

neither  been  taken  as  he  is  still  in  physical  

possession  by  making  construction  of  one  room  and  

boundary  wall  much  prior  to  issuance  of  the  said  

notifications over his acquired land in dispute and  

the same is now built up and also within 50 meters  

from village-Abadi nor compensation amount has been  

paid to the appellant till date.

11. It is further contended that this Court in the  

case  of  Pune  Municipal  Corporation  &  Anr v.  

Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and Ors.1 has interpreted  

the said Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. It is  

contended by the learned counsel for the appellant  

that  in  the  present  case  on  hand,  the  physical  

possession of the land of the appellant has not been  

taken  from  him  as  he  is  still  in  actual  physical  

possession of his acquired land in view of interim  

stay order passed by this Court on 17.09.2007 and  

1  (2014) 3 SCC 183

Page 6

6

compensation  amount  has  not  been  paid  to  the  

appellant  till  date  and  as  such  acquisition  

proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed qua land  

and relied upon the view taken by this Court in the  

case of Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana & Anr.2

12. It  is  contended  that  during  acquisition  

proceeding, no proper procedure has been followed by  

the  authorities  concerned  by  way  of  giving  prior  

notice  to  the  landowners/farmers/appellant  herein,  

whose structures exist over the acquired land or in  

any  case  standing  crops  etc.  by  way  of  preparing  

proper ‘Panchnama’ in the presence of witnesses and  

the land-holders, which is contrary to the decisions  

of  this  Court  in  Bhanda  Development  Authority,  

Bhanda v. Moti Lal Agarwal3, Raghubir Singh Sehrawat  

v. State of Haryana and Ors.4, Patasi Devi v. State  

of Haryana and Others5.  

13. It is further contended that it is not possible  

to take possession of the huge chunk of acquired land  

measuring 1109.11 Bighas out of the total acquired  

2  (2014) 6 SCC 586 3  (2011) 5 SCC 394 4  (2012) 1 SCC 792 5  (2012) 9 SCC 503

Page 7

7

land of village-Pansali in one day i.e. on 12.05.2000  

by  way  of  following  due  process  of  law  by  giving  

notice  etc.  to  the  land  owners  including  the  

appellant and as such only paper possession has been  

taken by the official concerned.

14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the  

respondents  contended  that  the  possession  of  the  

acquired  land,  including  the  land  owned  by  the  

appellant  has  already  been  taken  by  the  acquiring  

authority and handed over to the beneficiary agency  

which  has  made  large  scale  developments  over  the  

land. In case the appellant is having possession of a  

part of the land, then he is a trespasser and is  

liable to be prosecuted.  

15. It has been further contended by the learned  

counsel for the respondents 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 of 1897, the actions taken by the

Page 8

8

respondents have been saved.  By reading the above  

provisions  of  the  two  Sections,  it  is  clear  that  

Legislature  wanted  to  protect  and  save  the  

acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed  

L.A. Act, particularly where either possession of the  

acquired land has not been taken or compensation has  

not  been  paid  to  the  landowners.  It  is  further  

submitted  that  the  Act  of  2013  never  intended  to  

destroy entire acquisition proceedings in acquiring  

the land for the public purpose under the repealed  

L.A. Act, 1894. It is well settled position of law  

that the proceedings initiated and culminated under  

the repealed Act of 1894 are not to be disturbed by  

applying  the  interpretation  of  the  provisions of

Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 made by this Court  

in  the  above  referred  cases.  By  operation  of  the  

provisions of Section 16 or 17(1) of the L.A. Act as  

the case may be, once the possession of the acquired  

land is taken by the respondents, the land will be  

vested in the State Government which is absolutely  

free from all encumbrances.  Thereafter, it is not  

open even for the State Government to restore the

Page 9

9

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. In the cases reported as Satendra  

Prasad  Jain  Vs.  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh6.  and  

Sanjeevanagar  Medical  and  Health  Emloyees’  Co-

operative Housing Society Vs. Mohd. Abdul Wahab and  

Ors.7, this Court has held that once possession is  

taken by the Land Acquisition Collector in exercise  

of its statutory power under Section 16 or 17 (1) of  

the repealed L.A. Act, 1894, the land vests with the  

State Government, free from all encumbrances, even if  

no compensation has been awarded under Section 11 of  

the repealed L.A. Act within two years, that is, the  

statutory period prescribed under the repealed L.A. Act  

for  passing  an  award.  In  the  aforesaid  cases,  this  

Court has also held that Section 11(A) (analogous to  

Section 24 of the Act of 2013) of the repealed L.A. Act  

is  not  applicable  and  further  held  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  

6    (1993) 4 SCC 369 7     (1996) 3 SCC 600

Page 10

10

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 contended that the above said judgments were not  

brought to the notice of this Court while disposing of  

the case of Pune Municipal Corporation’s case & other  

cases  of  this  Court  referred  to  supra  which  are  

strongly  relied  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  and  

therefore the legal question in this regard requires to  

be referred to a larger Bench of this Court.

16. We  have  carefully  examined  the  application  

filed  by  the  appellant  seeking  for  the  beneficial  

provision of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 and the  

objections  filed  by  the  respondents  to  the  same.  

After examining the facts and circumstances of the  

case, we are of the considered view that the award  

passed under Section 11 was passed  on 03.04.2002 in  

respect  of  the  disputed  land  of  village-pansali,  

therefore,  it  is  an  undisputed  fact  that  it  was  

passed 5 years prior to the commencement of the Act  

of 2013 and the compensation for the acquisition of  

the  appellant’s  land  has  not  been  paid  to  the

Page 11

11

appellant. Further, with respect to taking over of  

possession  of  the  land  by  the  respondents,  it  is  

clear from the facts and circumstances of the case  

that  actual  physical  possession  of  the  land  in  

question has not been taken by the respondents. Even  

if,  for  the  sake  of  argument  it  is  accepted  that  

possession of the land was taken by the respondents,  

it is clear that due procedure has not been followed  

by  the  Acquisition  Authority  by  way  of  preparing  

proper  ‘Panchnama’  in  the  presence  of  independent  

witnesses and the land-holders, and therefore it is  

contrary  to  the  principles  law  laid  down  by  this  

Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhandar Society, New  

Delhi v.      Lt. Governor Govt. Of N.C.T. Delhi & Ors.  8 ,  

wherein, this Court held that when possession of a  

large  tract  of  land  is  to  be  taken  then  it  is  

permissible in law to take possession by a properly  

executed  ‘panchnama’  attested  by  independent  

witnesses. This was further reiterated by this Court  

in its decisions in the case of  Bhanda Development  

Authority,  Raghubir  Singh Sehrawat,  Patasi  Devi  

8  (2009) 10 SCC 501

Page 12

12

referred to supra.  Further, in the case on hand it is  

clear from the photographs produced along with the  

affidavit in support of additional documents produced  

before us that the appellant is still in physical  

possession of his acquired land. Undisputedly, actual  

physical possession of the acquired land has not been  

taken over by the respondents as pleaded by them by  

following  due  process  of  law.  Therefore,  the  

acquisition proceedings of the land of the appellant  

are lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Act of  

2013 as both the conditions under the said provision  

are fulfilled in the present case. This Court has  

rightly interpreted the said provision in its three  

Judge Bench decision in the case of  Pune Municipal  

Corporation referred to supra and the legal principle  

laid  down  with  respect  to  the  same  in  the  above  

mentioned case was reiterated by this Court in the  

cases of Bharat Kumar (supra), Bimla Devi & Others v.  

State  of  Haryana  &  Others9 and Union  of  India  &  

others v. Shiv Raj & Others10. The relevant paras of  

the Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) are extracted  

hereunder:-

9  (2014) 6 SCC 583 10 (2014) 6 SCC 564

Page 13

13

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

Page 14

14

there is no merit in the contention of the  Corporation.”  

17. On considering the facts and circumstances of the  

present case in the light of the legal principles laid  

down by this Court in the cases referred to supra, we  

are of the view that neither compensation has been paid  

by  the  respondents  to  the  appellant  for  the  said  

acquisition  even  though  more  than  five  years  have  

elapsed from the date of Award when the Act of 2013  

came  into  force  w.e.f.  01.01.2014  nor  physical  

possession of the land belonging to the appellant has  

been  taken  by  the  respondents.  Therefore,  the  

acquisition proceedings in respect of the appellant’s  

land have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act  

of 2013. In view of the law laid down by this Court in  

Pune  Municipal  Corporation’s  case and  other  cases  

referred to supra, we are of the opinion that the same  

are applicable to the fact situation on hand in respect

of the land covered in this appeal for granting the  

relief as prayed by the appellant in the application.

18.  In  view  of  the  above findings  and  reasons

Page 15

15

recorded by us with reference to the facts of the  

case and placing reliance upon the decisions of this  

Court referred to supra, the acquisition proceedings  

in respect of the appellant’s land have lapsed. The  

aforesaid application is allowed in the above terms  

and  consequently,  the  appeal  is  also  allowed  by  

quashing the acquisition proceeding notification in  

so far as the land of the appellant is concerned.

    The applications filed in S.L.P.(C) No.16578 of  

2007 for impleadment of Vijendra Singh, Brij Mohan  

Lal Jain and Shiv Charan as petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and  

4  respectively,  are  disposed  of  with  liberty  to  

challenge the acquisition proceedings before the High  

Court by filing writ petitions, placing reliance upon  

the provision of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 and  

catena of decisions rendered both under Section 24(2)  

of  the  Act  of  2013  and  on  merits.  If  such  writ  

petitions are filed by the above applicants, the same  

shall be heard on merits and disposed of, keeping in  

view  the  decisions  of  this  Court  on  the  legal  

questions.  

   There shall be no order as to costs.

Page 16

16

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

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

New Delhi,                                December 11, 2014

Page 17

17

ITEM NO.1B-For Judgment      COURT NO.11               SECTION XIV

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

C.A. No............2014 arising from SLP (C)  No(s).  16578/2007

VELAXAN KUMAR                                      Petitioner(s)

                               VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              Respondent(s)

Date : 11/12/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.

For Petitioner(s)                      Mr. T. N. Singh,Adv.                      

For Respondent(s)  Mr. Vishnu B. Saharya, Adv.                      For M/s Saharya & Co.

                    Ms. Rachana Srivastava,Adv.                       

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

judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr.  

Justice C. Nagappan.

Leave granted.

I.A. No. 7 is allowed.  Applications for impleadment  

are disposed of.  The appeal is allowed in terms of signed  

non-reportable judgment.  

   (VINOD KUMAR)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed Non-Reportable Judgment is placed on the file)