Time limit for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings to be extended by a year starting from August 1, 2024, holds SC while considering plea of DDA & State in case where acquisition proceedings were declared to be lapsed
Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta & Ujjal Bhuyan [17-05-2024]

Read Order: GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANOTHER v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED AND OTHERS [SC- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11857/2016]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 30, 2024: While considering a land acquisition matter where the lands were required for implementing residential schemes for low-income groups and significant construction had already been carried out, the Supreme Court has opined that every Notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be treated as a Preliminary Notification within the meaning of section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act of 2013.The Top Court has also held that the expropriated landowners shall be entitled to seek reference for enhancement of compensation.

The facts of the case suggested that the two Judges of the Top comprising the Division Bench were considering a clutch of review petitions (RPs), presented either by the Delhi Development Authority or the Government of NCT, Delhi, or the Land and Building Department, etc. (review petitioners). The RPs urged review of the judgments/orders passed by this Court on either Civil Appeals or Special Leave Petitions carried by the review petitioners from judgments of the Delhi High Court of Delhi declaring land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. By the judgments/orders under review, the said Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions stood dismissed. 

A split verdict emerged in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and ors. being the lead matter. The Judge presiding over the Bench ruled in favour of maintainability of the RPs whereas the companion Judge on the Bench disagreed and held that the RPs were not maintainable. An order was, thus, made by the Bench requiring the papers of the RPs to be placed before the Chief Justice. This is how the matters reached the Top Court.

The Review Petition arose out of the Writ Petition instituted by the first respondent, K.L. Rathi Steels Limited, which is the lead matter. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and similar line of decisions, the High Court allowed the writ petition taking a view that the necessary ingredients of section 24(2), having been met, the acquisition proceedings under challenge therein are deemed to have lapsed. Aggrieved, the first respondent carried such judgment praying for it to be set aside. The Top Court dismissed the appeals and granted a period of one year to the appellants (review petitioners herein) to exercise liberty granted under section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for initiation of acquisition proceedings afresh.

It was held in Pune Municipal Corporation and another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and others [LQ/SC/2014/83] that if any one of the two ingredients of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was attracted, i.e., either the physical possession of the land was not taken or the compensation was not paid, as the case may be, the acquisition proceedings under challenge would be deemed to have lapsed.  As far as the judicial trajectory is concerned, firstly, Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was doubted in Shailendra [2-Judge] [LQ/SC/2017/1796] whereafter it was declared per incuriam in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [3-Judge] [LQ/SC/2018/171], followed by its overruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse ] [LQ/SC/2020/356 ;] and ultimately recalled on 16th July, 2020 in  Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [Recall Order] 

The 3-Judge Bench of Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan firstly opined that merely based on Shailendra [3-Judge] (supra), a subsequent event, the review jurisdiction of this Court which is a limited jurisdiction could not have been invoked. It was also made clear by the Bench that there is absolutely no scope for a Bench of three Judges to declare a previous decision of a Bench of co-equal strength per incuriam. Shailendra [3-Judge] (supra), at the highest, could have doubted Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and referred it for decision by a yet larger Bench but could not have, by any stretch of reasoning, declared it per incuriam. Thus, having regard to its sense of judicial discipline and propriety, the Bench restrained itself from declaring Shailendra [3-Judge] (supra) as per incuriam.

The Top Court opined that the landowner, satisfied with a final decision of a court, could find himself requiring to contest a review petition filed on the basis of the ‘liberty’ granted by none other than the Supreme Court of India in proceedings where such landowner was not even noticed. “ Moreover, as on the dates the RPs were filed, the decision in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] (supra) had not seen the light of the day. A review petition, under the law, cannot be filed in anticipation of a favourable judgment in the future”, it added.

“It is no longer res integra that inherent powers of the court under section 151, CPC cannot be invoked if there exists a remedy made available by the CPC itself”, the Bench said. The Bench held that no review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based. “We also hold that notwithstanding the fact that Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has since been wiped out of existence, the said decision being the law of the land when the Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were finally decided, the subsequent overruling of such decision and even its recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Order XLVII of the CPC”, it added.

Thus, the Bench held that the time limit for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is extended by a year starting from August 1, 2024 whereupon compensation to the affected landowners may be paid in accordance with law, failing which consequences, also as per law, shall follow. The Bench also asked the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession, change of land use and creation of third- party rights till fresh acquisition proceedings.

The Bench asked the Collector to pass an award within six months, regardless of the maximum period of twelve months contemplated under section 25 of the 2013 Act. “The expropriated landowners shall be entitled to seek reference for enhancement of compensation in accordance with Chapter-VIII of the 2013 Act”, the Top Court further ordered.