/2023 INSC 0274/
/223 INSC 0274/
D.No.23608/2021
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.2749/2023
(arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.7510/2023
(arising out of S.L.P.(Civil)     D.No.23608/2021    )
LAND AND BUIILDING DEPARTMENT 
THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. …APPELLANT(S)
VS.
ATTRO DEVI & ORS.       …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3.            The   appellants   have   challenged   the   order   dated
20.12.2017   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Delhi.     Vide   aforesaid
order,   writ   petition   filed  by   the  respondents   was  allowed  holding
that   in   view   of   Section   24(2)   of   the   Right   to   Fair   Compensation
and   Transparency   in   Land   Acquisition,   Rehabilitation   and
Page  1  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “ the   2013 Act ”), the acquisition
in respect to the land in dispute, has lapsed.
4. From the facts of the case as are available on record, it
is   evident   that   vide   notification   dated   23.06.1989   issued   under
Section   4   of   the   Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894     large   chunk   of   the
land   including   the   land   of   petitioner   comprised   in   Khasra   No.1
Etc/57/1 and  Khasra  No.1  Etc/58/1,  situated  in  revenue   estate
of village Ghonda, Chauhan Khadar, New Delhi was sought to be
acquired for planned development of Delhi. It was followed by the
notification issued under Section 6 dated 20.06.1990. The Award
was announced on 19.06.1992.
5. A   writ   petition   was   filed   in   the   High   Court   invoking
Section   24(2)   of   the   2013   Act   claiming   that   the   acquisition   in
question has lapsed as neither possession has been taken nor the
compensation therefor has been paid.  The appellant’s stand before
the   High   Court   was   that   the   possession   of   the   land   was   taken   on
06.12.2012   and   handed   over   to   the   DDA   on   the   spot.     The
compensation   could   not   be   paid   to   the   recorded   land   owners   as
they never came forward to claim the same.
Page  2  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
6. The   High   Court   relying   upon   the   judgment   of   this
Court   in   Pune   Municipal   Corporation   &   Anr.   v.   Misirimal
Solanki   &   Ors.   (2014)   3   SCC   183   held   that   since   the
compensation   was   not   paid   to   the   landowners,   i.e.,   the
respondents herein, the acquisition in question has lapsed.  
7. The arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for
the   appellants   are   that   in   view   of   the   Constitution   Bench
judgment   of   this   Court   in   Indore   Development   Authority   v.
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 liable to  be set aside. It was opined by the  Constitution
Bench   that   compliance  of   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.     From   the   undisputed
facts available on record it is evident that in the present case, the
possession of land in dispute was taken after the acquisition was
complete.
Page  3  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
8. Additionally,   an   important   fact   brought   to   our
attention   is   that   the   subject   land   is   required   by   NHAI   for
construction   of   the   Delhi­Saharanpur­Dehradun   Highway
starting   from   Akshardham   Junction   to   Delhi/UP   Border,   in   the
State   of   Delhi   in   Phase­I   of   Bharatmala   Pariyojana.     Even   the
contractors   have   been   appointed   to   execute   the   project,   which
may   be   delayed   due   to   pendency   of   the   present   appeal.     The
subject land is therefore a part of the project which is of national
importance. 
9.  On   the   other   hand,   the   arguments   raised   by   learned
counsel for the respondents are that the writ petition having been
decided on the basis of law as existing on the date of decision by
the   High   Court   cannot   be   set   aside   on   the   basis   of   the
subsequent   judgment   of   this   Court.     The   High   Court   had   held
that   compensation   having   not   been   paid,   as   per   the
interpretation   of   Section   24(2)   of   the   2013   Act   by   this   Court   in
Pune   Municipal   Corporation’s   case   (supra) ,   the   acquisition
proceedings lapsed.   It is a matter of fact which has been noticed
Page  4  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
in the order passed by the High Court that the possession of the
land had already been taken by the authority concerned.  
10. Heard   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   parties   and
perused the records.
11. The   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in   Indore
Development   Authority's   case   (supra)   had   opined   that
satisfaction   of   either   of   the   conditions   namely   either   taking
possession   of   the   acquired   land   or   payment   of   compensation   to
the   landowners   would   be   sufficient   to   save   the   acquisition   from
being   lapsed  in  terms  of  Section  24(2)  of  the  2013  Act.     Various
questions posed before the Constitution Bench of this Court were
also   answered.     Relevant   para­Nos.   362   and   366   are   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. …  
...
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
Page  5  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
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 .
(emphasis supplied)
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
Page  6  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
of non­ deposit 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   non­   deposit   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
Page  7  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
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
Page  8  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
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.”
12. The   issue   as   to   what   is   meant   by   "possession   of   the
land   by   the   State   after   its  acquisition"   has  also   been  considered
by   Constitution   Bench   of   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   Indore
Development   Authority’s   case (supra). It is opined therein that
after the acquisition of land and passing of award, the land vests
in the State free from all encumbrances. The vesting of land with
the State is with possession. Any person retaining the possession
thereafter has to be treated trespasser. When large chunk of land
is   acquired,   the   State   is   not   supposed   to   put   some   person   or
police  force to   retain   the  possession  and  start  cultivating  on  the
land   till   it   is   utilized.   The   Government   is   also   not   supposed   to
start   residing   or   physically   occupying   the   same   once   process   of
the   acquisition   is   complete.   If   after   the   process   of   acquisition   is
Page  9  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
complete   and   land   vest   in   the   State   free   from   all   encumbrances
with   possession,   any   person   retaining   the   land   or   any   re­entry
made   by   any   person   is   nothing   else   but   trespass   on   the   State
land. Relevant paragraphs 244, 245 and 256 are extracted below:
"244 .  Section   16   of   the   Act   of   1894   provided
that possession of land may be taken by the State
Government   after   passing   of   an   award   and
thereupon land vest free from all encumbrances in
the   State   Government.   Similar   are   the   provisions
made   in   the   case   of   urgency   in   Section   17(1).   The
word   "possession"   has   been   used   in   the   Act   of
1894, whereas in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, the
expression   "physical   possession"   is   used.   It   is
submitted   that   drawing   of   panchnama   for   taking
over the possession is not enough when the actual
physical  possession  remained   with  the   landowner
and   Section   24(2)   requires   actual   physical
possession   to   be   taken,   not   the   possession   in  any
other   form.   When   the   State   has   acquired   the   land
and   award   has   been   passed,   land   vests   in   the
State   Government free from all encumbrances. The
act   of   vesting   of   the   land   in   the   State   is   with
possession,   any   person   retaining   the   possession,
thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser and has
Page  10  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
no   right   to   possess   the   land   which   vests   in   the
State free from all encumbrances . 
245 .  The question which arises whether there
is any difference between taking possession under
the   Act   of   1894   and   the   expression   "physical
possession"   used   in   Section   24(2).   As   a   matter   of
fact,   what   was   contemplated   under   the   Act   of
1894,   by   taking   the   possession   meant   only
physical   possession   of   the   land.   Taking   over   the
possession   under   the   Act   of   2013   always
amounted to taking over physical possession of the
land.   When   the   State   Government   acquires   land
and   drawns   up   a   memorandum   of   taking
possession,   that   amounts   to   taking   the   physical
possession   of   the   land.   On   the   large   chunk   of
property   or   otherwise   which   is   acquired,   the
Government   is   not   supposed   to   put   some   other
person or the police force in possession to retain it
and start cultivating it till the land is used by it for
the   purpose   for   which   it   has   been   acquired.   The
Government is not supposed to start residing or to
physically   occupy   it   once   possession   has   been
taken   by   drawing   the   inquest   proceedings   for
obtaining   possession   thereof.   Thereafter,   if   any
further retaining of land or any re­entry is made on
the  land or someone  starts  cultivation on the  open
land   or   starts   residing   in   the   outhouse,   etc.,   is
Page  11  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
deemed   to   be   the   trespasser   on   land   which   in
possession   of   the   State.   The   possession   of
trespasser always inures for the benefit of the real
owner that is the State Government in the case. 
 xxxx
  256 .  Thus, it is apparent that vesting is with
possession   and   the   statute   has   provided   under
Sections   16   and   17   of   the   Act   of   1894   that   once
possession is taken, absolute vesting occurred. It is
an   indefeasible   right   and   vesting   is   with
possession   thereafter.   The   vesting   specified   under
Section   16,   takes   place   after   various   steps,   such
as,   notification   under   Section   4,   declaration   under
Section   6,   notice   under   Section   9,   award   under
Section   11   and   then   possession.   The   statutory
provision of vesting of property absolutely free from
all   encumbrances   has   to   be   accorded   full   effect.
Not   only   the   possession   vests   in   the   State   but   all
other   encumbrances   are   also   removed   forthwith.
The   title   of   the   landholder   ceases   and   the   state
becomes   the   absolute   owner   and   in   possession   of
the   property.   Thereafter   there   is   no   control   of   the
landowner   over   the   property.   He   cannot   have   any
animus to take the property and to control it.   Even
if   he   has   retained   the   possession   or   otherwise
trespassed   upon   it   after   possession   has   been
taken   by   the   State,   he   is   a   trespasser   and   such
Page  12  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
possession of trespasser enures for his benefit and
on behalf of the owner    ."
 (emphasis supplied)    
13. It   is   also   a   fact   to   be   noticed   and   taken   care   of   that
large chunk of land is acquired for  planned development to take
care   of   immediate   need   and   also   keep   buffer   for   future
requirements.  Such portion of land may be lying vacant also.  As
has   been   observed   in   Indore   Development   Authority’s   case
(supra) by this Court, the State agencies are not supposed to put
police force to protect possession of the land taken after process
of   acquisition   is   complete.     As   far   as   the   case   in   hand   is
concerned, the land even if was lying vacant, is required now for
a   project   of   national   importance   for   construction   of   the   Delhi­
Saharanpur­Dehradun   Highway   starting   from   Akshardham
Junction   to  Delhi/UP  Border,  in  the  State   of  Delhi  in  Phase­I   of
Bharatmala Pariyojana.
14. It   is   the   undisputed   fact   on   the   record,   as   has   been
noticed   in   the   impugned   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   the
possession   of   the   land   was   taken   over   by   the   Land   Acquisition
Collector   and   handed   over   to   Delhi   Development   Authority.
Page  13  of  14

D.No.23608/2021
Report   of   possession   proceedings     dated   06.12.2012   has   also
been   placed   on   record.   Hence,   one   of   the   conditions   being
satisfied, we need not examine any other argument.   
15. Keeping   in   view   the   aforesaid   fact   and   the   law   laid
down   by   the   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in   Indore
Development Authority’s   case   (supra), in our opinion the order
passed   by   the   High   Court   cannot   be   legally   sustained   and   the
same   is   accordingly   set   aside.       However,   the   respondents   shall
be entitled to receive compensation as per their entitlement.  The
Land   Acquisition   Officer   should   also   take  steps   to   pay   the  same
to the rightful owner.  
16. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
……………………J.
                                             [Abhay S. Oka]
……….……………J.
  [Rajesh Bindal]
New Delhi;
11.04.2023.  
Page  14  of  14