/2023 INSC 0099/
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.943 of 2023
(@  SLP (C) No.3117 of 2023)
(@ Diary No.32553 of 2022)
Delhi Development Authority ..Appellant
Versus
Jagan Singh & 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   24.01.2017   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Delhi   at  New   Delhi   in   Writ   Petition   (Civil)   No.3164
1

of   2015   by   which   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ
petition   preferred   by   the   respondent   no.1   herein   –   original
writ   petitioner   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   Delhi   Development   Authority   has   preferred   the
present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court and even as per the finding recorded by the High
Court in para 3, the physical possession of the subject land
was   admittedly   taken   on   16.07.2007.     However,   thereafter
relying   upon   the   decision   of   this  Court   in  the   case   of   Pune
Municipal   Corporation   and   Anr.   Vs.   Harakchand
Misirimal  Solanki and  Ors.   reported in   (2014) 3  SCC  183
and on the ground that the compensation has not been paid
to   the   original   petitioner,   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the
2

said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with
respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed.
2.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the earlier
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   the   said   decision   it   is
specifically observed and held that once the possession was
taken   over   there   shall   not   be   deemed   to   have  lapsed   under
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
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
3

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.
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
4

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   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
5

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 enforcement of the 2013 Act
6

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.”
3. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Indore   Development   Authority   (supra)   and   applying   the
same   to   the   facts   in   the   case   on   hand   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   is  unsustainable.  Consequently,   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
deserves to be quashed and set aside.  
3.1 In  view  of the  above  and for  the reasons  stated above,
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   is   hereby   quashed   and
set aside.
7

The original writ petition preferred by the respondent –
original   writ   petitioner   filed   before   the   High   Court   stands
dismissed.     
Present appeal is allowed.  No costs.  
………………………………….J.
                          [M.R. SHAH]
                ..……………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
………………………………….J.
[SANJAY KAROL]
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 17, 2023.
8