1. Land acquisition — Claim of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1109
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, M.M. Sundresh, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority - Appellant
Versus
Krishan Lal Arora & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7960 of 2022
Decided On : 02-11-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2) of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2) of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Though possession of land in question was already taken over by Land Acquisition Collector on 02.09.2006, acquisition was ordered to be lapsed solely on the ground that compensation has not been paid to landowner – Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of 1894 Act, land vests in State and there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2) – Provisions of Section 24(2) providing for 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 2013 Act came into force – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court ordering lapse of acquisition with respect to land in question under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013, quashed and set aside. (Paras 2 and 3)
Facts of the case:
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. 10820 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original landowner – original writ petitioner - respondent herein, and has held and declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question has lapsed under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
View taken by the High Court is just contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR
For the Respondent(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR
For the Respondent(s) Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether land acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken but compensation remains unpaid. (Para 2 )
3. The court observed that ordering lapse solely due to non-payment of compensation despite possession being taken contradicts established Constitution Bench precedent. (Para 2 )
4. Deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act occurs only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned judgment quashed — Original writ petition dismissed. (Para 3 )
6. When does land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Lapse occurs only when authorities fail to both take possession of the land and pay compensation for five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. (Para 2 )
7. Does non-payment of compensation lead to lapse if possession has already been taken?
No. If possession has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse even if compensation has not been paid. (Para 2 )
8. Does the deposit of compensation in court constitute payment under Section 24(2)?
The expression paid does not include a deposit of compensation in court, and non-deposit does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. (Para 2 )
9. Can Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act be used to reopen concluded land acquisition proceedings?
No. Section 24(2) applies to proceedings pending as of January 1, 2014, and does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded proceedings. (Para 2 )
JUDGMENT :
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. 10820 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the original landowner – original writ petitioner respondent herein, and has held and declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question has 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”), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it is seen that though the possession of the land in question was already taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector / L& B Department, Government of NCT of Delhi on 02.09.2006, the acquisition is ordered to be lapsed solely on the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the landowner. According to the High Court, as the compensation has not been paid to the original writ petitioner – original landowner, Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 shall be attracted and therefore the acquisition is deemed to have been lapsed. The view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 and in paragraph 366, it is observed and held by this Court as under :-
“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 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.
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 tendering the amount under Section 31(
