/2023 INSC 0097/
 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.942 OF 2023
(@ SLP (C) NO.3116 of 2023)
(@ DIARY NO.28432 OF 2022)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. … Appellants
Versus
Dhannu & 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   16.11.2017   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Delhi   at   New   Delhi   in   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.   3158   of
2015   by   which   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ
petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein – original writ
petitioner   (now   represented   through   his   heirs)   and   has
1

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   “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 it appears that while allowing the writ petition the
High   Court   has   relied   upon   and/or   followed   the   earlier
decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Pune   Municipal
Corporation   and   Anr.   Vs.   Harakchand   Misirimal   Solanki
and   Ors.,   (2014)   3   SCC   183   on   the   ground   that   the
possession   of   the   subject   land   could   not   be   taken.     It   is
required   to   be   noted   that   before   the   High   Court   it   was   the
specific  case  on  behalf  of  the   appellant   that   the  land  belongs
to   Gram   Sabha   and   therefore   the   original   writ   petitioner   had
no   locus   to   pray   for   declaration   that   the   acquisition   with
respect  to  subject  land  is  deemed to  have  lapsed  by   virtue  of
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.  However, without deciding the
question   of   ownership   and   keeping   the   same   open,   the   High
2

Court   has   entertained   the   said   writ   petition   preferred   by   the
respondent  no.1  – original writ  petitioner.   At  this  stage,  it is
required   to   be   noted   that   even   before   the   High   Court   the
learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ
petitioner   did   not   dispute   that   the   land   belongs   to   Gram
Sabha.     In   that   view   of   the   matter   when   the   land   belongs   to
Gram   Sabha   which   was   even   admitted   on   behalf   of   the
original   writ   petitioner,   the   High   Court   ought   not   to   have
entertained   the   said   writ   petition   at   the   instance   of   the
original writ petitioner who was not even the recorded owner.
Even the question with respect to the compensation to be paid
would arise only in favour of recorded owner and/or in favour
of a person who had a title.
2.1 Even   otherwise   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   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   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,
3

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
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.
4

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.
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
5

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
reopen   concluded   proceedings   nor   allow   landowners
to   question   the   legality   of   mode   of   taking   possession
to   reopen   proceedings   or   mode   of   deposit   of
6

compensation   in   the   treasury   instead   of   court   to
invalidate acquisition.”
3. Applying   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Indore   Development   Authority   (supra)   and   as   observed
hereinabove that the land belongs to Gram  Sabha which was
admitted   on   behalf   of   the   original   writ   petitioner   and   the
original   writ   petitioner   was   not   the   recorded   owner   and/or
even the owner, the High Court ought not to have entertained
the   writ   petition.     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.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed.    No costs.  
………………………………….J.
                            [M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
                                                    [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
………………………………….J.
                                                    [SANJAY KAROL]
7

NEW DELHI;                
FEBRUARY 17, 2023.     
8