/2022 INSC 1030/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8993 OF 2022
(@ SLP (C) No. 22129 OF 2022)
(@ DIARY NO.22284 OF 2022)
Delhi Development Authority          ..Appellant 
Versus
Raj Singh & Anr.  ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   27.11.2018   passed   by   the   High
Court of Delhi at New   Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.10800
of   2016   by   which   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   Writ
Petition   and   has   declared   that   the   land   acquisition
1

proceedings   with   respect   to   the   land   in   question   under   Land
Acquisition   Act,   1894   is   deemed   to   have   lapsed   under   Sub­
section   (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’),   the   Delhi   Development   Authority   has   preferred   the
present appeal.
2. From   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High Court it appears that though in the counter affidavit filed
before the High Court filed by the Land Acquisition Collector it
was   stated   that   the   possession   was   taken   on   19.01.2006.
However,   the   details   of   the   payment   of  compensation   are   not
available with the LAC Branch and therefore it is not possible
to   state   anything   about   payment   of   compensation,   the   High
Court has allowed the Writ Petition and has declared that the
land   acquisition   with   respect   to   the   land   in   question   is
deemed to have lapsed under Sub­section (2) of Section 24 of
the   Act,   2013   solely   on   the   ground   that   the   amount   of
compensation was not paid to the land owners.
2

2.1 Now it is required to be noted that before the High Court
it   was   stated   on   behalf   of   the   DDA   that   it   released   a   sum   of
Rs.10  crores  to   the  Land  and  Building   Department  way  back
on 28.08.1990 in respect of the land acquired.  Therefore, the
High Court has allowed the writ petition and has declared that
the   acquisition   proceedings   with   respect   to   the   land   in
question   is   deemed   to   have   lapsed   under   sub­section   (2)   of
Section   24   of   the   Act,   2013   solely   on   the   ground   that   the
compensation was not actually paid to the land owners.
3. The   view   taken   by   the   High   Court   is   unsustainable   in
view   of   the   Constitution   Bench   decision   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 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
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   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. 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:
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
4

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   non­deposit   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 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
5

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).
366.8.   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.
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
6

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.”
4. In   view   of   the   above,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable and deserves to be
quashed   and   set   aside   and   is   accordingly   quashed   and   set
aside. 
P resent appeal is accordingly allowed. 
The original writ petition filed by respondent no.1 herein
filed   before   the   High   Court   being   W.P.(C)   No.10800   of   2016
stands dismissed.
No costs.  
………………………………….J.
                            [M.R. SHAH]
                ………………………………….J.
                                               [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 9, 2022.                  
7