Holding

When possession is not taken because of a court stay, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; the High Court’s declaration of lapse is set aside.

Summary

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against a Delhi High Court order that declared land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act as deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because possession had not been taken due to a court‑issued stay, although compensation had been sent in the form of a receipt‑demand (RD). The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki, which had earlier interpreted Section 24(2) to allow such a lapse. The Supreme Court, applying the later Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, held that a stay excludes the period of inaction and that the landowner cannot claim a lapse of proceedings merely because possession was not taken. The Court clarified the meaning of “or” in Section 24(2) as “nor/and” and explained that payment of compensation under the 1894 Act, even if tendered, does not trigger a lapse. Consequently, the High Court’s order was quashed and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when possession is not taken due to a court stay but compensation has been sent.
Whether the High Court's reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki is valid in view of the later Indore Development Authority judgment.
Interpretation of the word ‘or’ in Section 24(2) – does it mean ‘nor’/‘and’ for the lapse condition.
Effect of tendering compensation under the 1894 Act versus deposit of compensation in court on the lapse provision.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 16, s. 31(1), s. 34, s. 4
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013s. 24(1)(a), s. 24(1)(b), s. 24(2)

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 24(2) lapseCourt stayCompensation paymentInterpretation of statutory languageIndore Development Authority precedentRight to Fair Compensation Act

Judgment

[2023] 1 S.C.R. 765 765

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A
v.
DEWAN CHAND PRUTHI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 397 of 2023)
JANUARY 20, 2023 B
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) –
Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – On facts, C
possession not taken due to stay, however, compensation was sent
in RD - Writ petition seeking declaration that acquisition
proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have lapsed in
view of s.24(2) – Allowed by the High Court relying on the Pune
Municipal Corporation’s case – Sustainability of – Held: Not
sustainable – Impugned judgment contrary to law laid down by this D
Court in the Constitution Bench decision in the Indore Development
Authority’s case that once having obtained the stay against the
dispossession and due to which the acquiring body/beneficiary
could not have taken the possession, thereafter, it is not open for
the landowner to contend that as the possession is not taken, he is E
entitled to the benefit of s. 24(2) – Thus, order passed by the High
Court is quashed and set aside – Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors,
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
F
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
SCR 783 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 2.1 G

[2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.397 of
2023.
H
765
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 23.01.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.609 of 2016.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ishaan Sharma, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish
Vashist, Advs. for the Appellant.

B Nchiketa Joshi, S K Tyagi, Navanjay Mahapatra, Santosh Kumar,
Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Ms. Janhvi Prakash, Kartik Dey, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula,
Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
Petition (C) No. 609 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the
D said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein and has
declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard
to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
E “Act, 2013”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present
appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court.
F
2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it is evident that before the High Court, it was the specific case
on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) and so stated in the
counter affidavit in paragraph 8 that since the Hon’ble High Court had
granted stay against dispossession, therefore, the possession of the land
G
in question was not taken, however, the compensation with respect to
the land in question was sent in RD. Despite the above, relying upon the
earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.,
(2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and
H has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DEWAN CHAND 767
PRUTHI AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, A
in the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, this Court
has subsequently overruled the earlier decision of this Court in the case
of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been
relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and
B
order.
2.2 In the case of Indore Development Authority (supra),
the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and held that if the
possession could not be taken by the acquiring body / beneficiary due to
the stay of the Court, the period of stay is to be excluded. Even otherwise, C
we are of the opinion that once having obtained the stay against the
dispossession and due to which the acquiring body / beneficiary could
not have taken the possession, thereafter, it is not open for the landowner
to contend that as the possession is not taken, he is entitled to the benefit
of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
D
2.3 In the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) in
paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed
and held as under:-
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune
Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand E
Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and
all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune
Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3
SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decision
in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot F
be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other
decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore
Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], the
aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether
“or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed for G
consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in
the light of the discussion in the present judgment.
366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer
the questions as under:
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case
the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of
commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the
provisions of the 2013 Act.
B 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
window period of five years excluding the period covered by
an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue
as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the
1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
C 366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as
“and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction
of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement
D of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession
has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is
no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession
has not been taken then there is no lapse.

E 366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation
in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the
proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with
respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries
(landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition
F under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013
Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under
Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
G compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to
the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation
under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on
the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of
the 1894 Act.
H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. DEWAN CHAND 769
PRUTHI AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

366.5. In case a person has been tendered the A
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act,
it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under
Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non- deposit of
compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by
tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners
B
who had refused to accept compensation or who sought
reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the
acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is C
to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section
24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894
Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of
inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on D
taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land
vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no
lapse under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a E
deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities
have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay
compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came
into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the
authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence
of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the F
computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise
to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
G
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013
Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims
and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow
landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession
to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in
the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.” H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the Constitution
Bench decision in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra)
to the facts of the case on hand, the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
B Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri, LCRA)
C

D

E

F

G

H