/2022 INSC 0847/
/2022 INSC 1047/
 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9229 OF 2022
(@Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23601 of 2022)
(@ Diary No.3575 of 2022)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi           ..Appellant 
Versus
Mohd. Maqbool & 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   01.12.2015   passed   by   the   High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015
by   which   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ   petition
preferred by the respondent no.1 – original writ petitioner and
has   declared   that   the   acquisition   with   respect   to   the   land   in
1

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   ‘the   Act   2013’),   the   Government   of
NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. A   Notification   under   Section   4   of   the   Land   Acquisition
Act,   1894   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   Act,   1894)   with
respect   to  the   land   in   question   was   issued  as   far   as  back   on
10.11.1960 followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the
Act,   1894   dated   06.01.1969.     The   award   was   declared   on
31.01.1983.     According   to   the   Department   and   the   Land
Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit on
behalf   of   the   original   respondent   nos.   1   &   2   before   the   High
Court   the   possession   of   the   disputed   land   in   question   along
with the other lands were taken over and handed over to DDA
on   04.03.1983.     That   in   the   year   2015   the   respondent   no.1
filed   a   writ   petition   before   the   High   Court   challenging   the
acquisition   proceedings   including   the   Notification   under
Section 4 of the Act, 1894 and also for a declaration that the
2

acquisition   with   respect   to   the   land   in   question   is   deemed   to
have been lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2.1 Though it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant
and   the   Land   Acquisition   Collector   and   so   stated   in   the
counter affidavit before the High Court that the possession of
the land was taken on 04.03.1983 and the same was handed
over   to   DDA,   without   going   into   the   controversy   of   the
physical   possession,   by   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
and   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   on   the
ground   that   the   compensation   has   not   been   tendered   to   the
land owner, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and
has   declared   that   the   acquisition   with   respect   to   the   land   in
question is deemed to have lapsed under  Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013.  Hence, the present appeal. 
3. As   observed   hereinabove,   it   was   the   specific   case   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   and   the   Land   Acquisition   Collector
before   the   High   Court   that   the   possession   of   the   land   in
question   was   taken   over   on   04.03.1983   and   the   same   was
3

handed   over   to   the   DDA.     It   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the
original   acquisition   is   of   the   year   1960   and   the   writ   petition
was   preferred   challenging   the   acquisition   in   the   Notification
under Sections 4 & 6 after a period of almost 55 years.  By the
impugned judgment and order the High Court has allowed the
writ   petition   relying   upon   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the
case   of   Pune   Municipal   Corporation   (supra)   observing   that
the compensation has not been tendered.
3.1 However,   as   per   the   recent   decision   of   the   Constitution
Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Indore   Development
Authority versus Manoharlal and others   reported in   (2020)
8 SCC 129  for the purpose of lapse under  Section 24(2) of the
Act,   2013   twin   conditions   of   not   taking   over   possession   and
not   tendering/paying   the   compensation   are   required   to   be
satisfied.     As   per   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Indore
Development Authority (supra)  if one of the  conditions is not
satisfied,   there   shall   not   be   lapse   of   the   acquisition
proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.  In the case
of   Indore   Development   Authority   (supra)   the   Constitution
Bench of this Court has specifically over­ruled the decision of
4

this   Court   in   the   case   of   Pune   Municipal   Corporation   and
Anr.   (supra)   which   has   been   relied   upon   by   the   High   Court
while   passing   the   impugned   judgment   and   order.   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
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
5

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
paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification
for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.
6

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.
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
7

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.”
4. In   view   of   the   above   and   according   to   the   possession
certificate and the specific case on behalf of the appellant and
the Land Acquisition Collector that the possession of the land
in question was taken over on 04.03.1983 and handed over to
DDA,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High
Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside. 
Accordingly,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed
by the High Court allowing the Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015
and   declaring   the  acquisition   proceedings  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.    
P resent appeal is accordingly allowed.      No costs.  
8

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
………………………………….J.
                          [M.R. SHAH]
                ………………………………….J.
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT]
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 15, 2022.
9