REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.279 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO.1016 of 2023)
(@ DIARY NO.29573 OF 2022)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. … Appellants
Versus
Bhagrati & 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   29.11.2017   passed   by   the   High
Court  of  Delhi  at  New  Delhi  in  Writ  Petition   (C)  No.  12139  of
2015   by   which   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ
petition   preferred   by   the   private   respondent   no.1   herein   –
original   writ   petitioner   and   has   declared   that   the   acquisition
1

with respect to the land 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   Government   of   NCT   of   Delhi   has   preferred   the   present
appeal.
2. From   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the
High   Court   and   the   counter   affidavit   filed   on   behalf   of   the
appellant/LAC   before   the   High   Court,   it   appears   that   it   was
the   specific   case   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   and   others   –
original   respondents   that   the   award   with   respect   to   the   land
in question was declared on 19.06.1992 and the actual vacant
physical   possession   of   the   subject   land   was   taken   on
21.03.2007,   out   of   which   the   original   writ   petitioner   is
claiming   1/12 th
  share.     It   was   also   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
appellant   that   the   possession   was   handed   over   to   the   DDA
after   preparing   possession   proceedings   on   the   spot.     It   was
also the case on behalf of the appellant/LAC that the original
writ   petitioner   is   not   the   recorded   owner   and   the   recorded
owner   never   came   forward   to   receive   any   compensation   and
2

hence  the same is lying  unpaid.   Despite the  above and even
after   observing   that   the   land   in   question   was   taken   over
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,   the   High
Court has erred in keeping the question of title of the subject
land   open   to   be   decided   in   the   appropriate   court   of
jurisdiction,  has declared  that  the  acquisition  with  respect  to
the   land   in   question   is   deemed   to   have   lapsed   when   the
compensation had not been paid. 
2.1 From the aforesaid, it appears that the title with respect
to the land in question in favour of the original writ petitioner
was yet to be established.   The original petitioner was not the
recorded   owner.     The   recorded   owner   never   came   forward   to
receive   the   compensation   and   therefore   the   same   was   lying
unpaid.   Therefore, unless and until the right and title of the
original   writ   petitioner   was   established   the   High   Court   has
materially erred in entertaining the writ petition.
2.2 Even   otherwise   on   merits   also   the   impugned   judgment
and order  passed by the High Court is unsustainable.   While
3

passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has
heavily   relied   upon   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Pune   Municipal   Corporation   and   Anr.   (supra) ,   which   has
been   subsequently   specifically   over­ruled   by   the   Constitution
Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Indore   Development
Authority versus Manoharlal and others   reported in   (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:
4

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
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
5

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).
366.8.   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
6

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
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   and   applying   the   law   laid   down   by
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Indore   Development   Authority
(supra)  the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.  
4. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reason   stated   above
present appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment and order
passed   by   the   High   Court   declaring   that   the   acquisition   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.
7

Present appeal is accordingly allowed.    No costs.  
………………………………….J.
                            [M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
                                                    [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;                
JANUARY 13, 2023.     
8