/2022 INSC 1032/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8992 OF 2022
(@ SLP (C) NO.22130 OF 2022)
(@ DIARY NO.30174 OF 2022)
Land Acquisition Collector (South East)                 …Appellant
Versus
Dharamvir & Ors.                 …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   25.04.2016   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Delhi   at   New   Delhi   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   4576   of
2015   by   which   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ
petition preferred by the respondents herein and has declared
that the land acquisition proceedings with respect to the land
1

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   Land   Acquisition
Collector   (South   East),   Delhi   Government   has   preferred   the
present appeal. 
2. From   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High Court it appears that though it was submitted before the
High   Court   that   the   possession   of   the   land   in   question   was
taken   on   16.03.2004,   however   thereafter   relying   upon   the
decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Pune   Municipal
Corporation   and   Anr.   Vs.   Harakchand   Misirimal   Solanki
and   Ors.,   (2014)   3   SCC   183   and   by   observing   that   the
compensation   with   respect   to   the   land   in   question   has   not
been   paid,   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ   petition
and   has   declared   that   the   land   acquisition   proceedings
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.  
2.1 However,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the   decision   of
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Pune   Municipal   Corporation   and
2

Anr. (supra)   relied upon by the High Court while passing the
impugned judgment and order has been  specifically over­ruled
subsequently   by   the   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the
case   of   Indore   Development   Authority   versus   Manoharlal
and others, (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 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
3

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
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
4

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).
366.8.   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.
5

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
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.”
3. In view of the above Constitution  Bench  decision  of this
Court   in   the   case   of   the   Indore   Development   Authority
(supra),  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. 
P resent appeal is accordingly allowed.   The original  Writ
Petition (C) No. 4576 of 2015 stands dismissed.   No costs.  
………………………………….J.
                            [M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
                                                    [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;                
DECEMBER  9, 2022.     
6