/2022 INSC 0407/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2914 OF 2022
Agra Development Authority, Agra                   ..Appellant 
Versus
Anek Singh and others       ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at
Allahabad in  Civil Miscellaneous Writ  Petition  No.13927 of  2016
by   which   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ   petition
preferred by  the respondents herein original writ petitioners and
has held that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land
in question shall be deemed to have lapsed under Sub­section (2)
of   Section   24   of   the   Right   to   Fair   Compensation   and
Transparency   in   Land   Acquisition,   Rehabilitation   and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2013’),
1

the   Agra   Development  Authority,   Agra   has  preferred   the   present
appeal.
2. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   respective   parties.
We   have   perused   and   considered   the   impugned   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court.
3. Before   the   High   Court   it   was   the   specific   case   on   behalf   of
the  Agra  Development  Authority  – appellant  herein that  as such
the   possession   of   the   land   in   question   was   already   taken   over
and even the name of the Authority was mutated in the revenue
records.     It  was  also   the  specific  case  on   behalf  of  the  Authority
that   possession   of   the   land   in   question   was   with   them   but   the
original writ petitioners illegally occupied it again.  It was also the
case on behalf of the Authority that the development works have
already   been   carried   out   on   the   land   in   question   and   the   entire
compensation had already  been deposited with the Special Land
Acquisition   Officer.     It   was   also   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
Authority   that   the   original   writ   petitioners   deliberately   did   not
take the compensation for the remaining plot measuring 6 Biswa
and 15 Biswansi and therefore, on account of the fault of the writ
petitioners,   the   acquisition   proceedings   cannot   lapse.     However,
by   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   has   held
2

and declared that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the
land   in   question   shall   be   deemed   to   have   lapsed   under   sub­
section (2) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 on the ground that the
amount   of   compensation   was   not   actually   paid   to   the   land
owners.     While   holding   so   the   High   Court   has   relied   upon   and
considered   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Pune
Municipal   Corporation   and   another   versus   Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and others  reported in  (2014) 3 SCC 183.
3.1 Thus,   while  passing   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the
High   Court   has   solely   relied   upon   the   decision   of   this   Court   in
the   case   of   Pune   Municipal   Corporation   (supra)   and   other
decisions   in   which   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Pune   Municipal
Corporation   (supra)   was   followed.     (Para   12   of   the   impugned
judgment and order)
However,   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Pune
Municipal   Corporation   (supra)   has   been   subsequently   over­
ruled   by   the   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others,
3

2020) 8 SCC 129 .   In paragraph 366 it is observed and held as
under:
      “366.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid   discussion,   we
answer the questions as under:
366.1.   Under   the   provisions   of   Section   24(1)( a )
in   case   the   award   is   not   made   as   on   1­1­2014,   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   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
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
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 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  provisions  of  the
4

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.   Non­deposit   of   compensation   (in   court)   does
not  result  in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
In   case   of   non­deposit   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.
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 non­payment or
non­deposit of compensation in court. 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.
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   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).
366.9.   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   Act   i.e.   1­1­2014.   It   does   not
revive   stale   and   time­barred   claims   and   does   not
5

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.
366.8.   The   provisions   of   Section   24(2)   providing   for
a   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   1­1­2014.   The   period   of   subsistence   of   interim
orders   passed   by   court   has   to   be   excluded   in   the
computation of five years.”
4. In   view   of   the   above   Constitution   Bench   decision   of   this
Court in the case of  Indore Development Authority (supra ) and
the   earlier  decision   of  this  Court  in   the   case  of   Pune   Municipal
Corporation   (supra)   has   been   specifically   overruled   by   this
Court,   which   has   been   relied   upon   by   the   High   Court   while
passing   the   impugned   judgment   and   order,   the   same   passed   by
the   High   Court   is   unsustainable   and   it   deserves   to   be   quashed
and set aside.  
4.1 In   view   of   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Indore
Development   Authority   (supra)   and   considering   the   facts   and
circumstances   narrated   hereinabove,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the
6

acquisition   proceedings   with   respect   to   the   land   in   question   is
deemed to have lapsed under the provisions of the Act, 2013.
5. In   view   of   the   above   discussion   and   for   the   reasons   stated
above   present   appeal   succeeds.     The   impugned   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently,   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the   original   writ
petitioner before the High Court stands dismissed.  
In the facts  and circumstances of the case, there shall be no
order as to costs. 
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
May 20, 2022.
7