Holding

The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings have not lapsed under Section 24(2) because possession was taken, and therefore the High Court's declaration of lapse is set aside.

Summary

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that had declared the acquisition of a parcel of land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The land had an award dated 1992 and physical possession taken in 2007, but the original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner and the recorded owner never claimed the compensation, which remained unpaid. The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki, holding that non‑payment of compensation caused a deemed lapse. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred because (i) the title of the petitioner was not established, and (ii) the Pune decision had been overruled by Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which clarified that a lapse under Section 24(2) occurs only when both possession and compensation are missing for five years before 1‑1‑2014. Consequently, the acquisition has not lapsed, and the High Court order was set aside. The appeal was allowed and the order quashed.

Issues considered

Whether acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when possession has been taken but compensation remains unpaid.
Whether the High Court was correct in relying on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki, given its subsequent overruling.
Whether the title of the original writ petitioner must be established before a declaration of lapse can be made.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 16, s. 31, 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)Deemed lapseCompensationPossessionTitle of landownerSupreme Court interpretationOverruling precedent

Judgment

[2023] 1 S.C.R. 677 677

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. A
v.
BHAGRATI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.279 of 2023)
B
JANUARY 13, 2023
[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) – C
Land acquisition, when deemed to have lapsed – Writ petition by
the respondent-original writ petitioners, seeking declaration that
acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have
lapsed in view of s.24(2) – High Court allowed the writ petition –
Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – Title with respect to the
land in question in favour of the original writ petitioner was yet to D
be established – Original petitioner was not the recorded owner –
Recorded owner never came forward to receive the compensation
and therefore, the same was lying unpaid – Thus, unless and until
the right and title of the original writ petitioner was established the
High Court materially erred in entertaining the writ petition – Also, E
Pune Municipal Corporation’s case on which the High Court relied
upon, has been overruled in the Indore Development Authority’s case
– Thus, the order passed by the High Court is quashed and set
aside.
Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors. F
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
SCR 783 - referred to.
G
Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 3
[2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 2, 2.2
H
677
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.279 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.12139 of 2015.

B Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula,
D. P. Singh Yadav, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Manika Tripathy, Adv. 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 dated 29.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 12139 of 2015 by which the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondent
D no.1 herein –original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition
with respect 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 “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi has
E preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant/LAC
before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf
of the appellant and others – original respondents that the award with
F respect to the land in question was declared on 19.06.1992 and the
actual vacant physical possession of the subject land was taken on
21.03.2007, out of which the original writ petitioner is claiming 1/12 th
share. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant that the possession
was handed over to the DDA after preparing possession proceedings
on the spot. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant/LAC that the
G
original writ petitioner is not the recorded owner and the recorded owner
never came forward to receive any compensation and hence the same
is lying unpaid. Despite the above and even after observing that the land
in question was taken over thereafter relying upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs.
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. BHAGRATI & ANR. 679
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the A
High Court has erred in keeping the question of title of the subject land
open to be decided in the appropriate court of jurisdiction, has declared
that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed when the compensation had not been paid.
2.1 From the aforesaid, it appears that the title with respect to the B
land in question in favour of the original writ petitioner was yet to be
established. The original petitioner was not the recorded owner. The
recorded owner never came forward to receive the compensation and
therefore the same was lying unpaid. Therefore, unless and until the
right and title of the original writ petitioner was established the High C
Court has materially erred in entertaining the writ petition.
2.2 Even otherwise on merits also the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. While passing the
impugned judgment and order the High Court has heavily relied upon the
decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and D
Anr. (supra), which has been subsequently specifically over-ruled by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority versus Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC
129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court
has observed and held as under:-
E
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn.
[Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand 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. F
State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot 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 consideration. G
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
680 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.
366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
B 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.
366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
C 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 of the
said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
D 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.
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section
E 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 under Section 4 of the
1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
F 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
compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land
acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to
G 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.
366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it
H is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. v. BHAGRATI & ANR. 681
[M. R. SHAH, J.]

24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. A
The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under
Section 31(1). The landowners 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.
B
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is 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 taking C
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 D
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 E
interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the
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 proceeding F
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
G
to invalidate acquisition.”
3. In view of the above and applying the law laid down by this
Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
H
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 4. In view of the above and for the reason stated above present
appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby
quashed and set aside
B Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Shashwat Jain, LCRAs)

C

D

E

F

G

H