REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2926 OF 2023

(@ SLP (C) NO. 8041 OF 2023)

(@ DIARY NO. 3568 OF 2022)

Land Acquisition Collector (South) …Appellant(s)

Versus

Hari Chand and Anr. …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 passed by the High Court

of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3435 of 2016

by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition

and has declared that the acquisition with regard to the

land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section

Page 1 of 8

24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act,

2013”), the Land Acquisition Collector (South), New Delhi

has preferred the present appeal.

2.From the impugned judgment and order passed by

the High Court and even as per the counter affidavit filed

on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector before the High

Court, it was the case on behalf of the appellant that the

physical possession of the subject land was taken over

and handed over to the beneficiary department on

14.07.1987. However, thereafter and relying upon the

decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal

Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal

Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has

allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the

acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed

to have lapsed on the ground that the compensation with

respect to the land in question had not been paid.

2.1The decision of this Court in the case of Pune

Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has

been relied upon by the High Court while passing the

impugned judgment and order, has been specifically

Page 2 of 8

overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the

case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal

and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366,

the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed and

held as under:-

“365. Resultantly, the decision

rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune

Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal

Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby

overruled and all other decisions in which

Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal

Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki,

(2014) 3 SCC 183] has been followed, are

also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji

Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar

Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3

SCC 353] cannot be said to be laying down

good law, is overruled and other decisions

following the same are also overruled. In

Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra

[(2018) 3 SCC 412], the aspect with respect

to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether

“or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was

not placed for consideration. Therefore, that

decision too cannot prevail, in the light of the

discussion in the present judgment.

366. In view of the aforesaid

discussion, we answer the questions as

under:

Page 3 of 8

366.1. Under the provisions of Section

24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on

1-1-2014, 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.

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 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. Non-deposit 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 non-

payment or non-deposit of compensation in

court. The obligation to pay is complete by

Page 5 of 8

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 1-1-2014. The

period of subsistence of interim orders

Page 6 of 8

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. 1-1-2014.

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.”

3.Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case

of Indore Development Authority (supra) to the facts of

the case on hand and the fact that the possession of the

land in question was taken over on 14.07.1987, there

shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition as observed

and held by the High Court. Under the circumstances, the

impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

is unsustainable.

4.In view of the above and for the reasons stated

above, present appeal succeeds. The impugned

Page 7 of 8

judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby

quashed and set aside. There shall not be any deemed

lapse of acquisition with respect to the land in question.

Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

………………………………….J.

[M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; ………………………………….J.

APRIL 19, 2023. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

Page 8 of 8