Holding

Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, acquisition does not lapse unless both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid; therefore the High Court’s finding of lapse was erroneous.

Summary

The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed a Delhi High Court order that held land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 because compensation was not paid, even though possession of the land had been taken. The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand, which treated the lack of compensation as sufficient for lapse. The Supreme Court overruled that precedent by applying the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, holding that both possession must be untaken and compensation untendered for a lapse to occur; the word “or” in Section 24(2) must be read as “and”. Since possession was taken in the present case, the acquisition did not lapse. Consequently, the High Court judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid.
Whether the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki is overruled by Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
Interpretation of the word “or” in Section 24(2) – should it be read as “and”/“nor”.
Effect of non‑deposit of compensation in court on the lapse of acquisition proceedings.

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)possessioncompensationright to fair compensation actoverruling precedentinterpretation of statutory languageSupreme Court

Judgment

[2023] 1 S.C.R. 913 913

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. A
v.
KHAJAN SINGH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 361 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) –
High Court relying upon the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation
C
& Anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors observed that though
possession of the land in question was taken over but as
compensation was not paid, the acquisition proceedings in respect
of land in question deemed to have lapsed u/s. 24(2) of 2013 Act –
On appeal, held: The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.
v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors has been specifically overruled D
by the Constitution Bench in the case Indore Development Authority
v. Manoharlal and Ors. – The case of Indore Development Authority,
for lapsing of acquisition u/s. 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions,
namely, possession not taken and compensation not tendered are
required to be satisfied – It is observed and held that even if one of
E
the conditions is not satisfied, in that case also, there shall not be
any lapsing u/s. 24(2) of the Act, 2013 – In the present case,
admittedly the possession of the land in question was taken over on
the different dates as mentioned in the returns / counter affidavit
before the High Court – Therefore, impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court unsustainable – Appeal allowed. F
Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
(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 2.1,2.2, 3
[2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 2.1
H
913
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.361 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.6719 of 2015.
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
B Pandey, Avs Kadyan, Rajiv Ranjan, Mishra Saurabh, Ms. Sujeeta
Srivastava, Nishit Agrawal, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Ms. Vanya Agrawal,
Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Smita Maan,
Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Shekhar Yadav, Ms.
Iti Sharma, Rahul Bhatia, Rachita Kadyan, N. S. Vashist, Gagan Gupta,
C Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Diksha Narula, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
D and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
Petition (C) No. 6719 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the
said writ petition 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
E under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafte referred to as “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of
Delhi and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
F at length.
2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that while passing the impugned judgment and order,
the High Court has relied 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 and has observed
G that though the possession of the land in question was taken over on
specific dates mentioned in the returns /counter affidavit but as the
compensation was not tendered, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.
Therefore, even the High Court has also not disputed that the original
writ petitioners – original landowners were dispossessed on specific
H
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. KHAJAN 915
SINGH AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

dates mentioned in the returns / counter affidavit. Even in the writ petition A
also, the original writ petitioners have specifically admitted that they
were dispossessed. However, they claimed the lapse of acquisition solely
on the ground that the compensation was not paid / tendered relying
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. (supra), which decision of this Court has been
B
specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case
of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020)
8 SCC 129. 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 C
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 D
Residential Assn. v. 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 E
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:
F
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.
G
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.
H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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
of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
B
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
C 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
D 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
compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land
E 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.
F 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the
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
G 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.

H
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. KHAJAN 917
SINGH AND ANR. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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 pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 E
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.” F
2.2 Even as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra), for lapsing of acquisition
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions, namely, possession
not taken and compensation not tendered are required to be satisfied. It
is observed and held that even if one of the conditions is not satisfied, in G
that case also, there shall not be any lapsing under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013. In the present case, admittedly the possession of the land in
question was taken over on the different dates as mentioned in the returns
/ counter affidavit before the High Court.

H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 3. In view of the above and 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.

Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.
C (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)

D

E

F

G

H