DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ISLAMUDDIN & ORS.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 11826 of 2016, Judgment Date: Nov 29, 2016

                                                                  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 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 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.”

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 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 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.