/2023 INSC 0620/
NON­REPORTABLE 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4335 OF 2023
Delhi Development Authority         … Appellant
versus
Jagan Singh & Ors.    … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Interlocutory Application No.37319 of 2022
1. We   have   recorded   reasons   for   condoning   the   delay   in   the
main judgment.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. The   first   respondent   filed   a   Writ   Petition   under   Article   226
of   the   Constitution   of   India   before   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   for
questioning   the   acquisition   of   the   lands   subject   matter   of   the
Writ   Petition.   The   acquisition   was   under   the   provisions   of   the
Land   Acquisition   Act,   1894   (for   short,   ‘the   1894   Act’).     The
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  1  of  132023 INSC 620

notification   under   sub­Section   (1)   of   Section   4   of   the   1894   Act
was   issued   on   23 rd
  June   1989,   which   culminated   in   an   award
under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, which was made on 18 th
  June
1992.     In   the   meanwhile,   in   the   year   1990,   the   first   respondent
filed   a   Writ   Petition   challenging   the   acquisition   proceedings,
which was dismissed on 20 th
  May 2005.   On 19 th
  January 2006,
the   appellant   took   over   possession   of   the   acquired   land.     With
effect from 1 st
  January 2014, the 1894 Act was repealed and the
provisions   of   the   Right   to   Fair   Compensation   and   Transparency
in   Land   Acquisition,   Rehabilitation   and   Resettlement   Act,   2013
(for   short,   ‘the   2013   Act’)   were   brought   into   force.     On   25 th
  May
2015, the first respondent filed a Writ Petition contending that in
view   of   sub­Section   (2)   of   Section   24   of   the   2013   Act,   the
acquisition   shall   be   deemed   to   have   lapsed.     By   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   11 th
  August   2016,   by   relying   upon   a
decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Pune   Municipal
Corporation   &   Anr.   v.   Harakchand   Misirimal   Solanki   &
Ors. 1
,   the   High   Court   held   that   sub­Section   (2)   of   Section   24   of
the 2013 Act will apply as the compensation has not been paid to
the first respondent although physical possession of the acquired
1   (2014) 3 SCC 183
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  2  of  13

land   has   been   taken   over   by   the   appellant.   The   High   Court,
however,   directed   the   appellant   to   pay   compensation  to   the   first
respondent in accordance with the 2013 Act.
3. On   6 th
  March   2020,   a   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in
the   case   of   Indore   Development   Authority   v.   Manoharlal   &
Ors. 2
  expressly overruled its earlier decision in the case of   Pune
Municipal Corporation & Anr. 1 
and all other decisions based on
the   said   decision.     It   was   held   by   the   Constitution   Bench   that
another decision of this Court in the case of   Sree Balaji Nagar
Residential   Association   v.   State   of   Tamil   Nadu   &   Ors. 3
  was
not correct.   Even this decision was relied upon in the impugned
judgment.
4. The Constitution Bench in the case of  Indore Development
Authority 2  
interpreted  sub­Section  (2) of  Section  24 of  the 2013
Act.  Sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act reads thus: 
“ 24.   Land   acquisition   process   under   Act
No.1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed
in certain cases.–
(1) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub­
section   (1),   in   case   of   land   acquisition
2   (2020) 8 SCC 129
3   (2015) 3 SCC 353
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  3  of  13

proceedings   initiated   under   the   Land
Acquisition   Act,   1894   (1   of   1894),   where   an
award   under   the   said   section   11   has   been
made   five   years   or   more   prior   to   the
commencement of this Act but the physical
possession of the land has not been taken or
the   compensation   has   not   been   paid   the
said   proceedings   shall   be   deemed   to   have
lapsed   and   the   appropriate   Government,   if
it so chooses, shall initiate  the proceedings
of   such   land   acquisition   afresh   in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Provided   that   where   an   award   has   been   made
and   compensation   in   respect   of   a   majority   of
land   holdings   has   not   been   deposited   in   the
account   of   the   beneficiaries,   then,   all
beneficiaries   specified   in   the   notification   for
acquisition   under   section   4   of   the   said   Land
Acquisition   Act,   shall   be   entitled   to
compensation   in   accordance   with   the
provisions of this Act.”
                   (emphasis added)
5. In   paragraph   366.3   of   the   decision   of   the   Constitution
Bench   in   the   case   of   Indore   Development   Authority 2
,   it   was
held thus:
“ 366.   In   view   of   the   aforesaid   discussion,   we
answer the questions as under:
366.1. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 
366.2. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 
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
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  4  of  13

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. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ”
                (emphasis added)
6. In the present case, as recorded in the impugned judgment,
there is no dispute that the possession of the acquired land was
taken   over   on   19 th
  January   2006.     Therefore,   in   terms   of   the
decision   of   the   Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of   Indore
Development   Authority 2
,   sub­Section   (2)   of   Section   24   of   the
2013 Act will have no application even though the compensation
has not been paid.
7. Now, we propose to record reasons for condoning the delay.
The   main   question   is   whether   the   delay   of   1231   days   in
approaching this Court should be condoned.  On factual aspects,
it   must   be   noted   that   paragraph   2   of   the   impugned   judgment
records   that   the   acquired   land   has   been   utilised   for   the   third
respondent­Delhi   Metro   Rail   Corporation   (DMRC)   for   its   car
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  5  of  13

maintenance   depot   at   Kalindi   Kunj   under   the   MRTS   Project
(Phase­III).     By   the   order   dated   17 th
  February   2023,   this   Court
directed  the   appellant   to  file  on   record  the   present   status  of   the
acquired land.     Along  with the affidavit filed on 13 th
  April 2023,
photographs have been placed on record which are not disputed
by   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   first   respondent.
Therefore,   we   can   proceed   on   the   footing   that   the   acquired   land
has   been   utilised   for   a   public   purpose   by   DMRC   for   the   metro
depot   as   correctly   recorded   in   paragraph   2   of   the   impugned
judgment.  
SUBMISSIONS
8. The   submission   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   is
that   the   acquired   land   has   already   been   put   to   use   for   public
purposes. He urged that now the acquisition cannot be declared
as   lapsed   based   on   a   decision   which   has   been   expressly
overruled.   He   urged   that   the   reasons   for   the   delay   have   been
properly explained. 
9. The   strong   opposition   by   the   first   respondent   to   the
application for condonation of delay is firstly on the ground that
for a long delay of 1231 days, there is absolutely no explanation.
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  6  of  13

His   submission   is   that   in   fact,   the   conduct   of   the   appellant   as
well   as   the   Government   of   NCT   of   Delhi   shows   that   they
acquiesced to the impugned judgment.   He submitted that while
dealing   with   the   application   under   Section   5   of   the   Limitation
Act,   1963,   the   Court   cannot   be   oblivious   of   the   fact   that   the
successful   litigant   has   acquired   valuable   rights   on   the   basis   of
the   judgment   which   is   the   subject   matter   of   challenge.     He
submitted   that   it   is   well   settled   that   the   Courts   cannot   adopt   a
different   approach   while   dealing   with   the   applications   for
condonation   of   delay   made   by   the   State   or   its   agencies   and
instrumentalities   and   that   they   should   be   treated   on   par   with
other litigants.   He submitted that merely because the judgment
in   the   case   of   Pune   Municipal   Corporation   &   Anr. 1  
was
overruled   by   a   subsequent   judgment   of   the   Constitution   Bench,
the   appellant   cannot   succeed   unless   the   long   delay   is   explained
by showing sufficient cause.
10. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   first   respondent   has
relied upon the order dated 22 nd
  December 2017 of the appellant
which   contains   a   policy   dealing   with   the   question   of   initiating
fresh   acquisition   proceedings   where   the   acquisition   has   been
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  7  of  13

declared   as   lapsed   under   sub­Section   (2)   of   Section   24   of   the
2013 Act.   He submitted that in view of the policy and since the
acquired  land has been already  utilised for  public purposes,  the
direction   of   the   High   Court   in   the   impugned   judgment   to   pay
compensation   to   the   first   respondent   in   accordance   with   the
2013 Act, needs to be upheld. 
OUR VIEW
11. There   cannot   be   any   dispute   about   the   proposition   of   law
canvassed   by   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   first
respondent.   However, there cannot be any hard and fast rule to
decide whether sufficient cause exists.  It all depends on the facts
and circumstances of each individual case.
12. Over the years, this Court has repeatedly held that a liberal
and justice­oriented approach needs to be adopted in the matters
of   condonation   of   delay   so   that   the   substantive   rights   of   the
parties are not defeated only on the ground of delay.   The power
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must be exercised in
a very meaningful manner which will serve the ends of justice.
13. It   is   true   that   the   fact   that   the   decision   on   which   the
impugned   judgment   is   based   has   been   overruled   is   by   itself   no
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  8  of  13

ground   to   condone   a   long   delay.     In   the   facts   of   this   case,   it   is
true that the Special Leave Petition has been filed two years and
three   days   after   the   date   of   the   decision   of   the   Constitution
Bench in the case of  Indore Development Authority 2
.
14. In this case, admittedly, the acquired land has been used by
DMRC   for   the   metro   depot   and   the   metro   depot   exists   on   the
acquired land  as noted in the impugned  judgment.    Thus,  when
the Writ Petition was filed invoking sub­Section (2) of Section 24
of the 2013 Act, the acquired land was already put to use for an
important public purpose of the metro depot.  The use of the land
for   public   purposes   for   the   last   several   years   is   certainly   a
relevant   factor   for   adopting   a   liberal   approach   while   considering
the prayer for condoning the delay.   We may also note here that
the petition invoking sub­Section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act
was   filed   by   the   appellant   nearly   seventeen   months   after   the
2013 Act came into force.   In a case where the land was not put
to   use   for   a   public   purpose,   the   approach   of   this   Court   while
deciding the application for condonation of a long delay in such a
case would have been different.
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  9  of  13

15. The   policy   incorporated   in   the   notification   dated   22 nd
December   2017   will   apply   to   those   cases   where   the   acquisition
has been validly held to have lapsed. Therefore, in the facts of the
case, the said policy is of no help to the first respondent. 
16. We   find   that   the   application   for   condonation   of   delay   has
been   drafted   rather   casually.     However,   considering   the   peculiar
facts of the case, which we have discussed above, by adopting a
justice­oriented   and   liberal   approach,   the   delay   will   have   to   be
condoned. 
17. The High Court has issued a direction to pay compensation
to   the   first   respondent   in   terms   of   the   2013   Act.     The   said
direction was issued in the context of the fact that the Court was
declaring the acquisition as lapsed notwithstanding the fact that
the   acquired   land   was   already   used   for   an   important   public
purpose.  Once it is held that the acquisition under the 1894 Act
continues to be valid, the first respondent is disentitled to claim
compensation   payable   in   terms   of   the   2013   Act   which   was   not
applicable to the acquisition. However, the appellant is entitled to
receive compensation already determined under the award made
under the 1894 Act. 
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  10  of  13

18. Before   we   part   with   the   judgment,   while   looking   at   the
photographs of the metro depot constructed on the acquired land
which have been produced along with an affidavit dated 15 th
 April
2023, we noticed that a part of the pavement abutting the metro
depot   which   is   a   part   of   the   acquired   land   has   been   already
occupied   by   “a   car   clinic”   and   other   vendors.     A   citizen   has   lost
his   valuable   property   by   way   of   compulsory   acquisition.     The
compulsory acquisition has been made for a public purpose and
therefore, the appellant and all the concerned authorities cannot
allow   the   pavement   to   be   used   for   any   purpose   except   for
allowing   people   to   walk.     We   hope   and   trust   that   either   the
appellant takes immediate action on this behalf or calls upon the
authorities   empowered   to   take   action   to   do   the   needful
immediately in accordance with the law. 
19. Though,   the   appeal   succeeds,   considering   the   conduct   of
the appellant, we saddle the appellant with costs of  ₹ 50,000/­
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  11  of  13

20. Accordingly, we allow the Appeal on the following terms:
a. We  quash  and  set  aside the   impugned  judgment  and  order
dated 11 th
 August 2016;
b. The   Writ   Petition   (C)   No.3819   of   2015   filed   by   the   first
respondent before the High Court of Delhi stands dismissed;
c. We direct the appellant to pay costs quantified at   ₹ 50,000/­
to   the   first   respondent   within   a   period   of   one   month   from
today;
d. We  direct the first  respondent to furnish  his  Bank  Account
details along  with a photocopy  of a cancelled cheque  of  the
said   account   to   the   advocate   for   the   appellant.     The
appellant shall make online payment of the amount of costs
by   transferring   the   same   to   the   account   of   the   first
respondent;
e. If   the   compensation   determined   as   per   the   Award   made
under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has not been yet paid till
date, the appellant and /or the second respondent shall pay
the same to the first respondent in the manner  provided in
clause (d) as above within a period of one month from today.
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  12  of  13

21. We   hope   and   trust   that   the   appellant   and   all   other
concerned authorities shall take serious note of the observations
made by us in paragraph 18 above and take necessary action in
accordance with law.
………………….J.
(Abhay S. Oka) 
..………………..J.
       (Sanjay Karol)
New Delhi;
July 13, 2023.
Civil Appeal No.4335 of 2023  Page  13  of  13