/2023 INSC 0263/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1987 OF 2023
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 6169 of 2023)
(@ Diary No.37735 of 2022)
National Capital Territory of 
Delhi & Ors.         …Appellant(s)
Versus
Subhash Chander Khatri & Ors.    …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   15.01.2018
passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   at   New   Delhi   in
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page  1  of  8

Writ Petition (C) No.12143 of 2015 by which the High
Court   has   allowed   the   said   writ   petition   and   has
declared   that   the   acquisition   with   respect   to   the
subject land 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”),   however   the   High   Court   has
observed   and   held   that   the   original   writ   petitioner
would   be   entitled   to   compensation   under   the   Act,
2013, the Land and Building Department of the NCT
of   Delhi   and   others   have   preferred   the   present
appeal.
 
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed
by   the   High   Court,   it   appears   that   before   the   High
Court   it   was   the   specific   case   on   behalf   of   the
Department   that   the   possession   of   the   subject   land
has   been   taken.     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
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page  2  of  8

has   not   been   paid,   the   High   Court   has   allowed   the
writ   petition   and   has   declared   that   the   acquisition
proceedings   with   respect   to   the   subject   land   are
deemed   to   have   lapsed   under   Section   24(2)   of   the
Act,   2013.     However,   as   the   land   in   question   was
already   put   to   use   by   the   beneficiary   Department,
the   High   Court   has   directed   that   the   original   writ
petitioner   shall   be   entitled   to   the   compensation
under the New Act.
2.1 Thus,   even   the   High   Court   has   accepted   that
the   possession   of   the   land   in   question   was   already
taken over and even the land was put to use by the
Department.     Even   the   original   writ   petitioner   also
admitted   the   same   and   therefore   prayed   that   he   be
paid   the   compensation   under   the   Act,   2013.     Once
the   possession   of   the   subject   land   was   taken   over
and   in   fact   was   put   to   use   prior   to   2013   Act   came
into force, as per the law laid down by this Court in
the   case   of   Indore   Development   Authority   Vs.
Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129,  there shall
not   be   any   deemed   lapse   of   acquisition.     In
paragraph 366 it is observed and held as under:­
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page  3  of  8

“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.
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page  4  of  8

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 non­
payment 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
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page  5  of  8

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.   1­1­
2014.   It   does   not   revive   stale   and   time­
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page  6  of  8

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 above and once there shall be no
deemed   lapse   of   acquisition   under   Section   24(2)   of
the   Act,   2013,   the   original   writ   petitioner   shall   not
be   entitled   to   the   compensation   as   per   the   Act,
2013.     Under   the   circumstances   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is
unsustainable.  
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above,   the   present   appeal   succeeds.     The   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is
hereby   quashed   and   set   aside.     The   original   writ
petition   filed   by   the   respondent   no.1   herein   filed
before the High Court stands dismissed accordingly.
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page  7  of  8

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However,
in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   there
shall be no order as to costs.  
Pending   applications,   if   any,   also   stand
disposed of.        
………………………………….J.
                         [M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
                            [C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;      
APRIL 10, 2023.               
Civil Appeal No.1987 of 2023                  Page  8  of  8