1. Land acquisition under Act 1894 — Claim of lapse under Section 24(2) of Act 2013 — Dispute over possession and payment of compensation. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority - Appellant
Versus
Rambir and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 362 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 1499 of 2023) (@ Diary No. 5589 of 2022)
Decided On : 20-01-2023
Important Points
Possession taken or compensation paid prevents a lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Subject
Property Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013) - Section 24(2), Section 31 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act, 1894)
Fact of the Case:
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against the High Court's decision declaring that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that as per the law laid down in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., possession of the land in question was taken over in 2007, rendering the High Court's judgment unsustainable. The impugned judgment was quashed and set aside.Issues:
Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 due to non-payment of compensation as per Section 31 of the Act, 1894.Ratio Decidendi:
The court applied the interpretation provided by Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., emphasizing that possession taken or compensation paid prevents a lapse under Section 24(2). It also clarified that non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in a lapse of land acquisition proceedings.Final Decision:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was quashed and set aside.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether acquisition proceedings lapsed due to non-payment of compensation despite possession being taken by the acquiring authority. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court relied on overruled precedent; under current law, acquisition does not lapse if possession has been taken, regardless of compensation payment. (Para 2 )
4. Deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of Act 2013 occurs only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment quashed and set aside. (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 the non-payment of compensation lead to lapse if possession has already been taken?
No. If possession has been taken, the acquisition proceedings do 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) of the 2013 Act?
The expression paid in the main part of Section 24(2) does not include a deposit of compensation in court; however, non-deposit does not result in the lapse of proceedings. (Para 2 )
9. What is the effect of tendering compensation under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act?
Tendering the amount under Section 31(1) completes the obligation to pay. Landowners who refuse compensation or seek higher compensation cannot claim the acquisition has lapsed. (Para 2 )
10. Can Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act be used to challenge concluded acquisition proceedings?
No. Section 24(2) applies only to proceedings pending as of January 1, 2014, and does not reopen concluded proceedings or revive stale claims. (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. 5441 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard to the land in question 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”), the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has preferred the present appeal.
2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the LAC/DDA before the High Court and so stated in the counter filed that the possession of the land in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department in the year 2007. Despite the above and relying upon the earlier 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 declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that the compensation was not tendered to the original landowners as per Section 31 of the Act, 1894. However, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been specifically 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:
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
