/2023 INSC 0191/
//  1  //
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.                          /2023
(@SLP (C) NOS.34752­53 OF 2016)
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.          ..APPELLANT(S)
    
VERSUS
JAYANTIBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL         .. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   31.08.2015   passed   by   the
High   Court   of   Gujarat   at   Ahmedabad   in   Special   Civil
Application   No.9740/2012   by   which   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Gujarat   has   allowed   the
said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have

//  2  //
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”)   as   also   the   judgment   and
order   dated   01.04.2016   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Gujarat in Misc. Civil Application (For Review) No.3036
of 2015 in Special Civil Application No.9740/2012, the
State of Gujarat and others have preferred the present
appeals. 
2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeals   in   nut­shell
are as under:
2.1 That,   the   respondent   herein   –   original   writ   petitioner
was   the   owner   of   the   land   bearing   Survey   No.287
admeasuring   2   Hectare   37   Are   75   Sq.   Mtrs.   of   village
Tarsava,   Taluka   Vaghodia,   District   Vadodara
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “land   in   question”).   A
notification   under   Section   4   of   the   Land   Acquisition
Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) came
to   be   issued   on   11.04.1991   to   acquire   the   land   in
question   alongwith   adjacent   agricultural   lands   for   the

//  3  //
purpose   of   re­settlement   of   Narmada   Project   oustees.
That,   thereafter,   notification   under   Section   6   of   the
Act,   1894   was   issued   on   06.02.1992.   The   respondent
herein   –   original   land   owner   –   original   writ   petitioner
entered   into   an   agreement   and   a   consent   award   was
passed   on   11.06.1993.   As   per   the   agreement   and   the
consent   award,   initially   90%   of   the   amount   of
compensation   was   required   to   be   paid   to   the   land
owners   and   10%   amount   was   required   to   be   paid
thereafter.   However,   it   appears   that   the   respondent   –
land owner had second thought about the consent and
on   13.02.1995,   he   wrote   to   the   Assistant
Commissioner,   Sardar   Sarovar   Rehabilitation   Agency
that the compensation may not be paid and the land in
question   be   released   from   acquisition.   On   such
application,   the   Assistant   Commissioner   passed   an
order dated 07.03.1995, in which, he recorded that the
order   was   passed   for   payment   of   90%   of   the
compensation, however, the land owner did not accept
such   compensation.   Thereafter,   even   the   order   of
payment   of   remaining   10%   of   compensation   was   also

//  4  //
passed   however,   the   land   owner   –   respondent   herein
did   not   accept   such   compensation   and   that   he   has
now applied for cancellation of acquisition itself on the
ground   that   due   to   family   disagreements,   he   is   not
prepared   to   sell   the   land.   Thereafter,   nothing   further
happened   till   2009   and   it   appears   that   the   land
owner/s continued  to   be  in  possession   and  continued
to cultivate the agricultural lands.
2.2 That,   on   21.01.2009,   the   Assistant   Commissioner,
Sardar   Sarovar   Rehabilitation   Agency   cancelled   the
order   dated   07.03.1995   by   observing   that   the
acquisition of the land in question has been completed
and   the   land   has   been   vested   in   Sardar   Sarovar
Rehabilitation   Agency   and   on   basis   of   that   affected
persons   were   allotted   also   and   therefore,   as   per   the
legal   provision,   once   an   order   is   passed,   it   is
mandatory   to   make   the   payment   of   compensation.
Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Sardar Sarovar
Rehabilitation Agency cancelled the earlier order dated
07.03.1995   and   restored   the   order   for   90%   and   10%

//  5  //
amount   of   compensation   as   per   the   earlier   orders
dated 05.05.1993 and 09.02.1994 (for payment of 90%
and 10% of the amount of compensation respectively).
Pursuant   to   the   aforesaid   order   dated   21.01.2009   of
the   Assistant   Commissioner,   the   Special   Land
Acquisition   Officer   vide   communication   /   letter   dated
05.04.2010   conveyed   to   the   respondent   herein   –
original   land   owner   that   his   case   for   payment   of
compensation   is   fixed   on   16.04.2010   in   the   office   of
Talati­cum­Mantri,   Tarsava   and   therefore,   he   shall
remain   present   and   receive   compensation.   That,
thereafter the respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner
filed   the   writ   petition   for   setting   aside   the   consent
award   dated   11.06.1993   passed   under   Section   11   of
the Act, 1894.
2.3 Before   the   High   Court,   it   was   the   case   on   behalf   of
respondent No.1 – original writ petitioner – land owner
that   his   request   for   withdrawal   of   the   consent   was
accepted   by   the   Special   Land   Acquisition   Officer   and
thereafter,   no   compensation   was   received   and   the

//  6  //
possession  of the land  in  question  was  also not  taken
over   and   therefore,   many   years   later   the   authority
cannot   implement   the   award   by   insisting   on   payment
of compensation.
2.4 In the meantime, Act, 2013 came into force with effect
from   01.01.2014   and   therefore,   Section   24(2)   of   the
Act,   2013   was   pressed   into   service   and   it   was
submitted on behalf of the land owner that as, neither
the compensation has been paid nor the possession of
the land in question is taken and that the land owner
continued to be in possession of the land in question,
the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2.5 It was the case on behalf of the Acquiring Body and the
State   Government   that   the   land   owner   cannot
withdraw such consent once the award was passed. It
was   also   submitted   on   behalf   of   the   Acquiring   Body
and   the   State   Government   that   merely   because   the
land owner did not accept the compensation would not

//  7  //
make   any   difference.   It   is   submitted   that   once   the
award   was   passed   and   a   further   order   was   passed   to
pay   the   amount   of   compensation   as   per   the   consent
award, the same has to be implemented and therefore,
the   Assistant   Commissioner   was   justified   in   passing
the   order   dated   21.01.2009  which   was   communicated
by   Land   Acquisition   Officer   on   05.04.2010   asking   the
land   owner   to   receive   the   compensation,   as   originally
fixed.
2.6 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
has set aside the order dated 05.04.2010 by observing
that such an order could not have been passed after a
period of 15 years having once accepted the request on
behalf   of   the   land   owner   to   cancel   the   acquisition.
Thereafter,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has
further   passed   an   order   that   as,   neither   the
compensation   is   paid   nor   the   possession   is   taken
and/or   the   original   land   owner   continued   to   be   in
possession   and   cultivating   the   land   in   question,   the
acquisition   is   deemed   to   have   lapsed   under   Section

//  8  //
24(2)   of   the   Act,   2013.   Consequently,   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ
petition   by   setting   aside   the   land   acquisition   award
dated 11.06.1993  qua  the land in question.
2.7 That,   thereafter   the   Assistant   Commissioner   and
others   filed   the   review   petition   before   the   High   Court
against   the   observations   made   by   the   Division   Bench
that   possession   has   not   been   taken   over.   It   was
pointed   out   that   as   such   the   possession   was   already
taken   over   by   the   Sardar   Sarovar   Rehabilitation
Agency   at   the   time   of   passing   of   the   award.   However,
the High Court has dismissed the review application.
2.8 The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court   in   Special   Civil   Application   as   well   as   the
impugned   order   passed   in   Review   Application   are   the
subject matter of present appeals.  
3. Ms.   Deepanwita   Priyanka,   learned   counsel   appearing
for the State of Gujarat has vehemently submitted that
as   such   the   issue   involved   in   the   present   appeals   viz.

//  9  //
Whether   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,
there   shall   be   deemed   lapse   of   acquisition   under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is now not  res integra  in
view   of   the   decision   of   the   Constitution   Bench   of   this
Court   in   the   case   of   Indore   Development   Authority
Vs.   Manoharlal   and   Ors.   reported   in   (2020)   8   SCC
129. 
3.1 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case   there   was   a
consent   award   passed   on   11.06.1993   and   thereafter
the   orders   were   passed   to   pay   90%   and   10%
compensation   vide   orders   dated   05.05.1993   and
09.02.1994.   However,   the   original   land   owner   did   not
accept   the   compensation   though   offered   and   he
insisted   for   withdrawal   of   the   acquisition.   It   is
submitted   that   therefore,   thereafter   vide   order   dated
07.03.1995,   the   order   of   compensation   under   the
award came to be cancelled. 
3.2 It   is   submitted   that   however   as   Award   under   Section
11   of   the   Act,   1894   continued   and   amount   of

//  10  //
compensation   was   to   be   paid   under   the   consent
award   /   award,   the   Assistant   Commissioner   was
justified in passing the order dated 21.01.2009, which
was   communicated   to   the   original   writ   petitioner   by
the   Special   Land   Acquisition   Officer   vide
communication dated 05.04.2010. 
3.3 It   is   submitted   that   once   the   award   under   Section   11
of the Act, 1894 was a consent award, the same could
not   have   been   set   aside   by   the   High   Court
subsequently   on   the   ground   that   the   compensation
under   the   Act,   1894   has  not   been   paid   for  number   of
years   and   that   the   land   owner   continued   to   be   in
possession of the land in question. It is submitted that
as   such   it   was   the   specific   case   on   behalf   of   the
appellants   before   the   High   Court   that   it   was   the
original   land   owner   who   did   not   accept   the
compensation   offered   and   despite   consent   award,   he
continued to cultivate the land forcibly. It is submitted
that   even   it   was   the   specific   case   on   behalf   of   the
appellants before the High Court that possession of the

//  11  //
land   in   question   was   taken   over   by   drawing
panchnama   at   the   time   of   passing   of   the   consent
award.   It   is   submitted   that   however   the   High   Court
has   not   believed   taking   over   the   possession
considering   the   affidavit   filed   by   the   Assistant
Commissioner   in   which   the   Assistant   Commissioner
stated   that   the   land   owner   continued   to   cultivate   the
land. It is submitted that however the High Court has
not considered the entire affidavit on possession in its
true   perspective.   It   is   submitted   that   as   per   the
decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Indore
Development   Authority   (Supra)   taking   over   the
possession   of   land   /   open   land   by   drawing   the
panchnama   is   one   of   the   mode   which   is   legally
permissible.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   High
Court   has   materially   erred   in   setting   aside   the   award
dated   11.06.1993   under   Section   11   of   the   Act,   1894
and also declaring that the acquisition with respect to
the   land   in   question   is   deemed   to   have   lapsed   under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. 

//  12  //
3.4 Ms.   Deepanwita   Priyanka,   learned   counsel   appearing
for   the   appellants   –   State   of   Gujarat   and   Others   has
further submitted that even otherwise in the facts and
circumstances   of   the   case,   there   shall   not   be   any
deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013. 
It is submitted that in the present case admittedly
pursuant   to   the   consent   award   passed   under   Section
11 of the Act, 1894, the orders were passed to pay the
compensation   to   the   land   owner   and   the   land   owner
was   called   upon   to   come   to   the   office   of   Talati­cum­
Mantri, Tarsava to accept the compensation.  However,
the land owner refused to accept the compensation as
offered.   It   is   submitted   that   once   there   was   a   refusal
on   the   part   of   the   land   owner   to   accept   the
compensation   though   offered,   there   shall   not   be   any
deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. 
3.5 It   is   further   submitted   that   as   observed   and   held   by
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Indore   Development

//  13  //
Authority   (Supra) ,   only   in   a   case   where   there   is   a
lapse   on   the   part   of   the   Acquiring   Body   in   not
tendering   /   paying   the   compensation,   and   not   taking
over the possession, there shall be deemed lapse under
Section   24(2)   of   the   Act,   2013.   It   is   submitted   that   in
the  present case there was no  lapse at  all  on the part
of the Acquiring Body and/or State Government in not
taking   the   possession   and   in   not   tendering   /   paying
the   compensation.   It   is   submitted   that   as   such   the
original   land   owner   refused   to   accept   the
compensation   which   has   been   recorded   in   the   order
dated 07.03.1995. 
Making   above   submissions   and   relying   upon
decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the
case   of   Indore   Development   Authority   (Supra) ,   it   is
prayed to allow the present appeals. 
4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri Nakul
Diwan,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   contesting   respondent   –   original   writ   petitioner   –
original land owner. 

//  14  //
4.1 It   is   prayed   by   Shri   Diwan,   learned   senior   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   land   owner   that
before   the   High   Court   there   was   a   challenge   to   the
subsequent   communication   dated   21.01.2009   by   the
Assistant   Commissioner   communicated   vide   letter
dated   05.04.2010   by   the   learned   Special   Land
Acquisition Officer  suo moto  cancelling the earlier order
dated   07.03.1995.   It   is   submitted   that   the   said   issue
has not been decided by the High Court and therefore,
the   matter   may   be   remanded   to   the   High   Court   to
consider   the   legality   and   validity   of   the   order   dated
21.01.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and
the   communication   dated   05.04.2010   by   the   Special
Land Acquisition Officer calling upon the land owner to
remain   present   in   the   office   of   Talati­cum­Mantri,
Tarsava  to receive / accept the compensation. 
4.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Diwan,   learned   senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the original land owner
that   in   the   present   case   the   original   land   owner
withdrew   his   consent   and   therefore,   refused   to   accept

//  15  //
the   compensation   awarded   under   the   consent   award
and   requested   to   withdraw   the   acquisition,   which
came   to   be   accepted   by   the   Assistant   Commissioner
vide   order   dated   07.03.1995   and   the   award   was
cancelled.   It   is   submitted   that   in   that   view   of   the
matter, thereafter, after a period of 15 years, it was not
open   for   the   Assistant   Commissioner   to   cancel   the
order   dated   07.03.1995   that   too   in   exercise   of   suo
moto   powers   and   without   giving   any   opportunity   of
hearing to the original land owner. 
4.3 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Diwan,   learned   senior
counsel   that   even   otherwise   when   the   original   land
owner continued to remain in physical possession and
cultivating the land in question even for a period of 15
years after the consent award passed in the year 1993
and   the   compensation   was   not   paid   for   number   of
years,   in   view   of   Section   24(2)   of   the   Act,   2013,   there
shall  be deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings. It is
submitted   that   therefore   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High   Court   has   not   committed   any   error   in   setting

//  16  //
aside the consent award on the ground that the same
has   not   been   implemented   for   number   of   years   and
that the land in question is not used by the Acquiring
Body for the purpose for which it was acquired and the
High   Court   has   rightly   declared   that   the   acquisition
with respect to the land in question is deemed to have
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. 
Making   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to
dismiss the present appeals. 
5. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   for
respective parties at length. 
5.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that the original
award   dated   11.06.1993   passed   under   Section   11   of
the Act, 1894 was a consent award with respect to the
land   owned   by   the   present   respondent   –   original   land
owner as well as other lands acquired for re­settlement
of Narmada Project oustees. It is also to be noted that
thereafter   and   pursuant   to   the   consent   award,   the
amount   of   compensation   (90%   +   10%)   was   in   fact

//  17  //
offered   to   the   land   owner   and   he   was   called   upon   to
accept the compensation offered, but the respondent –
original   land   owner   refused   to   accept   the
compensation   offered   and   insisted   to   withdraw   the
acquisition. It was the case on behalf of the appellants
before   the   High   Court   that   the   possession   of   the   land
in  question  was  taken  by  drawing  spot  panchnama  at
the time of passing of the consent award. However, the
High Court has disbelieved the same by observing that
even   as   per   the   affidavit   of   the   Assistant
Commissioner,   the   land   owner   continued   to   be   in
possession   of   the   land   in   question   and   continued   to
cultivate   the   same.   However,   the   affidavit   which   is
reproduced   in   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   is
required to be considered in its true perspective and in
its   entirety.   In   the   affidavit   dated   22.03.2013   filed   by
one Shri Bhagora Kamlasingh Jokhanbhai on behalf of
the Assistant Commissioner, it was stated as under: 
“ 6. I   state   that   however   the   Petitioner
refused   to   handover   the   land   and   to   take
compensation   along   with   other   similarly
situated   farmers   whose   land   were   also

//  18  //
acquired as per the Award dated 11.06.1993.
The   Petitioner  along   with  other  persons  made
an   application   dated   27.07.1993   for
cancellation of the Award.
7. I   state   that   by   the   order   dated
07.03.1995, pursuant  to  the   reluctance   of   the
Petitioner   to   hand   over   the   possession   and   to
take the compensation on so called grounds of
family   disputes,   the   order   of   payment   of
compensation was cancelled, but at the same
time,   the   order   of   acquisition   was   not
cancelled.   It   appears   that   the   Petitioner   has
successfully   avoided   to   handover   the
possession   of   the   land   acquired   under   the
provisions   of   Act   though the   land   is  vested  in
the Respondent No.3”
14. With   regard   to   the   averments   made   in
para   No.3.2   of   the   petition,   I   deny   the   same
inasmuch   as   Petitioner   refused   to   take   the
compensation   and   therefore,   last   notice   was
given to  the   Petitioner on 05.04.2010 and   the
Petitioner refused to accept the compensation,
the   same   is   now,   deposited   with   the
Government   Treasury   as   stated   hereinabove.
The   Petitioner   is,   therefore,   require   to
handover   the   possession   of   land   to   the
Respondent   No.3   so   that   the   same   can   be
allotted   for   rehabilitation   of   the   affected
persons of Narmada Project.”
5.2 Thus, from the aforesaid it can be seen that it was the
specific   case   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   and   the
Assistant Commissioner that the land owner refused to
hand   over   the   land   and   refused   to   accept   the

//  19  //
compensation   alongwith   other   similarly   situated
farmers   whose   lands   were   also   acquired   as   per   the
consent   award   dated   11.06.1993.   It   can   also   be   seen
that it was the case on behalf of the appellants that by
order dated 07.03.1995, pursuant to the reluctance of
the   land   owner   to   hand   over   the   possession   (physical
possession) and to take the compensation on so­called
ground   of   family   disputes,   the   order   of   payment   of
compensation   was   cancelled.     But   at   the   same   time,
the order of acquisition was not cancelled and that the
land   owner   successfully   avoided   to   hand   over   the
possession of the land acquired under the provisions of
the   Act,   1894   though   the   land   vested   in   the   Sardar
Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency. 
5.3 Considering the aforesaid factual aspects it is required
to   be  considered  whether   there  shall   be   deemed   lapse
of  acquisition  under   Section   24(2)   of  the   Act,  2013   as
observed and held by the High Court ?
In   the   case   of   Indore   Development   Authority
(Supra) , it is observed and held as under: 

//  20  //
“ 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   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

//  21  //
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.
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.

//  22  //
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.”
5.4 Therefore,   as   per   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in
the   case   of   Indore   Development   Authority   (Supra) ,
taking   over   the   possession   of   the   land   by   drawing
panchnama   is   held   to   be   legally   permissible   and   can
be said to be taking over the possession legally. In the
present case, there was a consent award under Section
11   of   the   Act,   1894.   The   possession   was   taken   by
drawing   the   panchnama   at   the   time   of   passing   of   the
consent award dated 11.06.1993. However, thereafter,
because   of   the   reluctance   on   the   part   of   the   land
owner,   he   did   not   actually   and   physically   hand   over
the   possession   and   he   continued   to   cultivate   the
acquired   land   which   actually   vested   in   the   State

//  23  //
Government   /   Acquiring   Body   /   Sardar   Sarovar
Rehabilitation Agency. 
6. Even   otherwise,  in   the   facts  and   circumstances  of   the
case,   there   shall   not   be   any   deemed   lapse   under
Section   24(2)   of   the   Act,   2013   on   the   ground   that  the
amount   of   compensation   was   not   paid.   It   is   an
admitted  position   that  after   the  consent   award, under
Section   11   of   the   Act,   1894,   was   passed   on
11.06.1993,   the   amount   of   compensation   was   in   fact
offered to the land owner alongwith other land owners
and   the   respondent   –   original   land   owner   was   called
upon   to   remain   present   in   the   office   of   Talati­cum­
Mantri to receive / accept the compensation. However,
the   land   owner   refused   to   accept   the   compensation
though   offered.   In   that   view   of   the   matter,   once   the
compensation   was   offered,   which   as   such   was   offered
pursuant to the consent award under Section 11 of the
Act,   1894,   but   the   land   owner   refused   to   accept   the
same,   how   there   can   be   any   deemed   lapse   of
acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013? 

//  24  //
6.1 As   per   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Indore   Development   Authority   (Supra)   and   even
otherwise   considering   the   object   of   providing   the
deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013 seems to be that if there is any lapse on the
part  of   the   Acquiring   Body   /  agency   in   not   taking  the
possession   and   not   paying   the   compensation   there
shall   be   deemed   lapse   of   acquisition.   Therefore,   for   a
deemed   lapse   under   Section   24(2)   of   the   Act,   2013,
there shall be a lapse on the part of the Acquiring Body
/   beneficiary   in   not   taking   the   possession   and   not
paying the compensation. In the present case, both the
conditions   are   not   satisfied.   In   fact,   the   amount   of
compensation under the consent award under Section
11   of   the   Act,   1894   was   offered   and   the   land   owner
was   called   upon   to   accept   the   compensation   however,
the   land   owner   refused   to   accept   the   same.   Even   the
possession   was   taken   by   drawing   the   panchnama   at
the   time   of   declaration   of   the   consent   award   under
Section   11   of   the   Act,   1894.   However,   thereafter,

//  25  //
because   of   the   reluctance   on   the   part   of   the   original
land  owner,  the physical and  actual  possession  of the
land   could   not   be   taken   by   the   Acquiring   Body.   From
the aforesaid it can be seen that there was no lapse at
all   on   the   part   of   the   Authority   neither   in   offering   /
paying   the   compensation   nor   in   not   taking   the
possession.   Therefore,   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court   has   materially   erred   in   declaring   that   the
acquisition   with   respect   to   the   land   in   question   is
deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013. 
7. Now,   so   far   as   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   in   setting   aside   the   award
dated   11.06.1993   on   the   ground   that   the   award   has
not   been   implemented   for   number   of   years   and   the
amount of compensation has not been paid for number
of years and the land is not utilized / used for number
of years is concerned, at the outset it is required to be
noted   that   it   was   the   original   owner   who   refused   to
accept   the   compensation   offered   in   the   year   1993.

//  26  //
Therefore,   an   order   dated   07.05.1993   was   passed
cancelling   the   order   of   offering   the   compensation.
However, the acquisition and the consent award, both
continued.   However,   thereafter,   the   land   owner
continued to make representations to release the land
from   acquisition.   Therefore,   it   was   the   original   land
owner   who   did   not   accept   the   compensation   offered
and   continued   to   make   representations   to   release   the
land   from   acquisition.   In   these   circumstances,   the
Division   Bench   of   High   Court   has   committed   a   very
serious error in setting aside the consent award on the
aforesaid ground. The consent award under Section 11
of   the   Act,   1894   ought   not   to   have   been   set   aside   in
the   manner   in   which   it   is   set   aside.   The   High   Court
has not at all properly appreciated and considered the
conduct on the part of the land owner. At this stage it
is   required   to   be   noted   that   at   many   places   the   High
Court   has   observed   in   paragraph   11   that   “the
petitioner,   alongwith   other   land   owners   of   the   area,
agreed   to   acquisition   of   his   land   on   a   fixed   rate   of
compensation”.   Even   the   High   Court   has   also   taken

//  27  //
note of the fact that the amount of compensation  was
offered   but   the   original   land   owner   refused   to   accept
the   same.   Once   the   land   owner   refuses   to   accept   the
amount   of   compensation   offered   by   the   Acquiring
Body, thereafter it will not be open for the original land
owner   to   pray   for   lapse   of   acquisition   on   the   ground
that the compensation has not been paid. As observed
hereinabove, there shall be deemed lapse of acquisition
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 if there is a lapse
on the part of the Acquiring  Body  / beneficiary  in not
taking   the   possession   and   the   compensation   is   not
paid.   Even   otherwise   as   observed   and   held   by   this
Court   in   the   case   of   Indore   Development   Authority
(Supra) ,   for   the   deemed   lapse   under   Section   24(2)   of
the   Act,   2013,   twin   conditions   of   not   taking   the
possession and not paying the compensation, both are
required   to   be   satisfied.   Therefore,   if   one   of   the
conditions   is   not   satisfied,   there   shall   not   be   any
deemed lapse.
8. Now,  so  far  as  the  prayer   on  behalf  of  the   land  owner

//  28  //
to remand the matter to the High Court to consider the
legality   and   validity   of   the   subsequent   order   dated
21.01.2009   cancelling   the   earlier   order   dated
07.03.1995 is concerned, at the outset it is required to
be noted that the order dated 21.01.2009 was as such
not   the   subject   matter   of   the   writ   petition   before   the
High Court. No prayer was made to set aside the order
dated   21.01.2009   passed   by   the   Assistant
Commissioner,   Sardar   Sarovar   Rehabilitation   Agency.
What was challenged before the High Court was award
under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 and the subsequent
communication   dated   05.04.2010   issued   by   the
Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer  calling  upon   the  land
owner   to   remain   present   in   the   office   of   Talati   cum
Mantri   to   accept   the   compensation   and   to   release   the
land. Be that as it may, assuming that the order dated
21.01.2009 was bad in law and the earlier order dated
07.03.1995 is restored, in that case also, it would not
have   a   bearing   on   the   aspect   of   deemed   lapse   under
Section   24(2)   of   the   Act,   2013.   The   fact   remains   that
though   the   amount   of   compensation   was   offered   and

//  29  //
the   original   land  owner  was  called  upon  to   accept  the
compensation as per the consent award, he refused to
accept the same. 
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
present   appeals   succeed.   Impugned   judgment   and
order   dated   31.08.2015   passed   by   the   High   Court   of
Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.9740/2012 and
the   order   dated   01.04.2016   passed   in   review
application   being   Misc.   Civil   Application   (For   Review)
No.3036   of   2015   in   Special   Civil   Application
No.9740/2012   are   hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.   In
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be
no order as to costs. 
………………………………… J.
             (M. R. SHAH)
………………………………… J.
     (MANOJ MISRA)
New Delhi, 
March 17, 2023