/2023 INSC 0203/
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.____________ OF 2023
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.22803 of 2019)
Delhi Development Authority           …Appellant(s)
Versus
Batti & Ors.                            …Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.____________ OF 2023
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) D.No.30579 of 2021)
Government of NCT of  Delhi & Anr.          …Appellant(s)
Versus
Batti & Anr.                               …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1.       Leave granted. 
2. This  order  will  dispose  of two appeals arising  out
of   order   dated   30.11.2017   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of
the   High   Court   of   Delhi   in   W.P(C)   No.   12135/2015.     One
appeal is preferred by Delhi Development Authority whereas
the another has been filed by Government of NCT of Delhi.

2
3. The service on respondent is complete.   However,
no one appeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing.
4. The   facts   of   the   cases   are   available   on   record.
Vide  notification dated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 of
the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   (For   short,   ‘the   Act’)   large
chunk   of   the   land   measuring   about   3,500   Hectares   was
sought   to   be   acquired   for   planned   development   of   part   of
Delhi.     It   was   followed   by   notification   issued   on   June   20,
1990   under   Section   6  of     the   Act.       The   Award   bearing   No.
13/92­93 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector
(DS), Delhi on 19.06.1992.
5. It   is   evident   from   the   facts   noticed   by   the   High
Court   in   the   impugned   order   that   husband   of   the
respondent   late   Mange   Ram   was   son   of   late   Harkesh.     He
was father­in­law of the respondent no.1­ writ petitioner.  He
was   claimed   to   be   the   recorded   owner   of   1/12 th
  share   [01
bigha   and   19   biswas   and   03   biswansi]   in   land   bearing
Khasra   Nos.   281/4(10­11),   282/4   (10­3)   and   80(2­8)   total
area   measuring   23   bighas   and   2   biswas,   situated   in   the
revenue estate of Village Ghari Mandu, Shahdara, Delhi.

3
6. There   is   nothing   on   record   to   suggest   the
acquisition   in   question   was   ever   challenged   by   the
predecessor­in­interest of respondent no.1.  The writ petition
came to be filed in the year 2015 referring to Section 24(2) of
the   Right   to   Fair   Compensation   and   Transparency   in   Land
Acquisition,   Rehabilitation   and   Resettlement   Act,   2013   (for
short   “the   2013   Act”)   claiming   that   the   possession   of   land
having   not   been   taken   and   the   compensation   not   paid,   the
acquisition has lapsed.
7. The   High   Court   noticed   the   fact   that   the
possession   of   the   land   had   been   taken   by   the   State   and
handed   over   to   the   Forest   Department   for   development   as
green belt, agriculture and water body as the land falls in ‘O’
Zone.   It was further  pleaded that respondent no.1 was not
entitled   to   receive   any   compensation   as   the   land,   in   fact,
vested in Gaon Sabha.
8. After considering the arguments raised by learned
counsel   appearing   for   the   parties,   the   High   Court,   while
relying upon the judgment of this Court in   Pune Municipal
Corporation   &   Anr.   vs.   Harakchand   Misirimal   Solanki
&   Ors.   (2014)     3   SCC   183       held   that   the   acquisition   in

4
question has lapsed   qua   the land of the respondent no.1 as
the compensation therefor had not been tendered.  The issue
regarding entitlement of compensation to the respondent as
there   was   dispute   regarding   the   title   of   the   land,   was   kept
open.
9. The   arguments   raised   by   learned   counsel
appearing   for   the   appellant   are   that   in   view   of   the
Constitution   Bench   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Indore
Development   Authority   vs.   Manoharlal   and   Others
(2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby earlier judgment of this Court in
Pune   Municipal   Corporation   &   Anr.’s   case     (supra)   was
overruled   the   order   passed   by   the   High     Court   is   to   be   set
aside.     It   was   opined   by   the   Constitution   Bench   that
compliance to either of the two conditions   i.e.   taking over of
possession of the land or payment of compensation, is good
enough to sustain the acquisition.  In the case in hand, from
the facts admitted on record it is evident that the possession
of   the   land   was   taken   after   the   acquisition   was   complete.
There   was   no   question   of   payment   of   compensation   to
predecessor in interest of the  respondent no.1 as admittedly
there   was   dispute   regarding     title   of   the   land.     The   land   is

5
recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha.   Even the High Court
in the impugned order had kept the question of title open.  
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 
11.   There is no dispute on the fact that the judgment
of   this   Court   in   Pune   Municipal   Corporation   and
Another’s   case   (supra),   was   relied   upon   by   the   High   Court
to   hold   that   the   acquisition   in   question   had   lapsed.   It   was
overruled by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court
in the   Indore Development Authority’s   case (supra).   Para
362 thereof is extracted below:
“362.  Resultantly,   the   decision   rendered
in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. (supra)
is hereby  overruled and all other  decisions in
which   Pune   Municipal   Corporation   (supra)
has been followed, are also overruled.”
12. Various   questions   required   to   be   considered   by
the   Constitution   Bench   were   answered   in   para   366   of   the
judgment. The same read as under: 
“366.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid
discussion,   we   answer   the   questions   as
under:

6
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

7
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

8
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

9
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
compensation in the treasury instead of court
to invalidate acquisition.”
13. A   perusal   of   the   impugned   order   passed   by   the
High Court shows that the Writ Petition was allowed relying
upon   the   judgement   of   this   Court   in   Pune   Municipal
Corporation   and   Another’s   case   (supra).     The   case   set   by

10
the   writ   petitioner   was   that   late   Harkesh   was   the   recorded
owner of the land as noticed in para 2 of the judgment.  The
writ petitioner is his daughter­in­law.   Even the husband of
the   writ   petitioner   had   expired   when   the   writ   petition   was
filed.     It   was   claimed   that   late   Harkesh   was   having
bhoomidari   rights,   however   in   terms   of   the   stand   taken   by
the   appellant,   no   surviving   membership   was   placed   on
record.     Definite   and   undisputed   stand   taken   by   the
respondent before the High Court was that the possession of
the land was taken after the award was announced and the
same   was   handed   over   to   the   Forest   Department   for
development   as   green   belt,   agriculture   and   water   body   as
the land falls in ‘O’ Zone.  
14. Initially, the stand sought to be taken by the writ
petitioner   before   the   High   Court   was   that   the   physical
possession   of   the   land   had   not   been   taken,   however,   the
same   was   given   up.     The   only   argument   pressed   was   that
the compensation be paid as per the provisions of the 2013
Act.     The   Writ   Petition   was   allowed   relying   upon   the
judgment   of   this   Court   in   Pune   Municipal   Corporation
and   Another’s   case   (supra).     The   High   Court   had   also

11
noticed   the   fact   that   there   was   dispute   about   title   of   the
property   which   as   per   the   stand   taken   by   both   the   parties
was   kept   open.     Meaning   thereby,   even   the   compensation
could   not   have   been   paid   to   the   predecessor   interest   of   the
respondent/   writ   petitioner.     There   is   nothing   on   record   to
suggest   as   to   what   action   was   taken   by   the   person   who
claimed   interest   in   the   property   to   seek   compensation,   in
case   land   owned   by   him   was   acquired   more   than   two
decades   back   and   no   compensation   paid.   The   litigation
started only with enactment of Act of 2013 
15. For   the   reasons   recorded   above,   the   present
appeal   deserves   to   be   allowed   as   the   ingredients   of   Section
24(2)   of   2013   Act   as   interpreted   by   this   Court   in   Indore
Development   Authority   vs.   Manoharlal   and   Others’s
case   (supra)   are   not   satisfied   in   the   case   in   hand.     There
cannot be lapsing of acquisition of land.  
16. The   appeals   are,   accordingly,   allowed   and   the
impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.   The
writ   petition   filed   by   the   respondents   in   the   High   Court
stands dismissed. 

12
……………………J.
                                                         [Abhay S. Oka]
……….……………J.
     [Rajesh Bindal]
New Delhi 
22.03.2023.