[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.280 of 2023
(@  SLP (C) No. 1019 of 2023)
(@ Diary No.32601 of 2022)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi ..Appellant
Versus
Sunil Jain & 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   17.07.2017   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Delhi   at  New   Delhi   in   Writ   Petition   (Civil)   No.2989
of   2016   by   which   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ
1

petition   preferred   by   the   private   respondents   herein   –
original   writ   petitioners   and   has   declared   that   the
acquisition 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   ‘the   Act   2013’),   the   Government   of   NCT   of
Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. Having   gone   through   the   impugned   judgment   and
order passed by the High Court and para 5, it appears that
the   original   writ   petitioners   being   the   subsequent
purchasers   of   the   land   in   question   they   do   not   derive   any
right or title   to the land at the time of Award and thereafter
cannot   challenge   the   acquisition   proceedings.     Therefore,   it
was   the   specific   case   that   the   original   petitioners   had   no
locus to file the writ petition and seek any relief with respect
to   the   acquisition.     From   the   counter   filed   before   the   High
Court   it   appears   that   it   was   also   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
2

appellant   and   so   stated   in   the   counter   affidavit   that   the
possession   of   the   land   in   question   could   not   be   taken   over
due   to   the   pending   litigation   which   ended   upto   this   Court
upholding   the   acquisition   proceedings.     However,  thereafter
and   despite   the   above   and   without   even   considering   the
locus   of   the   original   writ   petitioners   to   challenge   the
acquisition/lapsing   of   the   acquisition,   solely   relying   upon
the fact that the possession has not been taken over and the
compensation   is   not   paid   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,  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. 
2.1 Now  so  far   as  the  locus  of  the  original  writ  petitioners
being subsequent purchasers is concerned, the said issue is
now not  res integra  in view of the decision of the three Judge
3

Bench   of   this   Court   is   the   case   of   Shiv   Kumar   &   Anr.   Vs.
Union of India & Ors.   (2019) 10 SCC 229   which has been
subsequently   followed   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Delhi
Administration   Through   Secretary,   Land   and   Building
vs.   Pawan   Kumar   &   Ors.,   Civil   Appeal   No.3646   of   2022
and   Delhi   Development   Authority   versus   Godfrey
Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022.    In
the   aforesaid   decisions   this   Court   has   specifically   observed
and   held   that   the   subsequent   purchaser   has   no   locus   to
challenge   the   acquisition   and/or   lapsing   of   the   acquisition.
In   that   view   of   the   matter   the   High   Court   has   materially
erred   in   entertaining   the   writ   petition   preferred   by   the   writ
petitioners   ­   subsequent   purchasers   and   declaring   that   the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed.
2.2 Even otherwise on merits also the impugned judgment
and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is   unsustainable.
4

Before   the   High   Court   it   was   the   specific   case   on   behalf   of
the   appellant   that   the   possession   could   not   be   taken   over
due   to   the   pending   litigation   initiated   by   the   original   land
owners   challenging   the   acquisition   which   ended   upto   this
Court.     As   observed   and   held   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Indore   Development   Authority   versus   Manoharlal   and
others   reported in   (2020) 8 SCC 129   the period during the
stay is to be excluded.  If the acquiring body/beneficiary was
not able to take the possession due to pending litigation in a
proceeding   initiated   by   the   land   owner,   thereafter   the   land
owner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of
the same and thereafter to contend that as the possession is
not   taken   over   (may   be   due   to   the   pending   litigation)   still
they are entitled to benefit of lapse.
2.3 Even   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Pune
Municipal   Corporation   and   Anr.   (supra)   which   has   been
relied   upon   by   the   High   Court,   has   been   subsequently
5

specifically   over­ruled   by   the   Constitution   Bench   of   this
Court in the case of  Indore Development Authority versus
Manoharlal   and   others,   (2020)   8   SCC   129.     In  paragraph
366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has 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
6

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   non­
deposit   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.
7

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   time­
barred   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.”
8

3. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reason   stated   above,
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   set   aside.     Consequently,   the
original writ petition filed by original writ petitioners praying
for   lapse   of   the   acquisition   proceedings   accordingly   stands
dismissed. 
P resent appeal is accordingly allowed.      No costs.  
………………………………….J.
                          [M.R. SHAH]
                ………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY  13, 2023.
9