1. Land acquisition proceedings — Possession taken but compensation not paid — Claim of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 59
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Government of NCT of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Ratiram and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 379 of 2023, SLP (C) No. 1349 of 2023, Diary No. 24886 of 2022
Decided On : 20-01-2023
Important Points
Non-payment or non-deposit of compensation does not lead to a lapse if possession has been taken or if compensation has been paid.
Subject
Property Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition - Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Summary:
Fact of the Case:
The High Court declared that the acquisition of land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act due to non-payment of compensation. The government appealed this decision.Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision was unsustainable as it relied on a precedent that had been overruled by the Constitution Bench. Therefore, the impugned judgment was quashed and set aside.Issues:
Whether the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act due to non-payment of compensation.Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court applied the law laid down by its Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129, which overruled previous decisions. It clarified that non-payment or non-deposit of compensation does not lead to a lapse if possession has been taken or if compensation has been paid.Final Decision:
The appeal succeeded, and the High Court's judgment declaring that the acquisition had lapsed was quashed and set aside.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Ms. Somi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C.p. Rajwar, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Ms. Somi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Mr. C.p. Rajwar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether land acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession is taken but compensation is not paid. (Para 3 )
3. The High Court relied on overruled precedent; under current law, acquisition does not lapse if possession has been taken, regardless of non-payment of compensation. (Para 4 , 5 )
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 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — Impugned judgment quashed and set aside — Original writ petition dismissed. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. When does land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Lapse occurs only when authorities fail to take possession and fail to pay compensation for five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. If either possession is taken or compensation is paid, there is no lapse. (Para 4 )
7. Does the non-deposit of compensation in court lead to the lapse of land acquisition proceedings?
No, the non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. If the majority of holdings are not deposited, landowners may be entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act. (Para 4 )
8. What is the effect of taking possession of land on the claim of lapse under Section 24(2)?
Once possession is taken—typically by drawing an inquest report or memorandum—the land vests in the State. Because there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2), the acquisition does not lapse if possession has been taken. (Para 4 )
9. Does Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act allow for the reopening of concluded land acquisition proceedings?
No, Section 24(2) does not give rise to a new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings, nor does it revive stale claims or allow landowners to reopen proceedings based on the mode of possession or deposit. (Para 4 )
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 dated 13.02.2017 in Writ Petition (C) No. 8685 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the private respondent herein and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed by virtue of 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 Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant and others before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and other original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on 21.03.2007. In paragraphs 6 and 7 in the counter affidavit, it was stated as under:
“6. That as per the record, the land in question, i.e. Khasra No. 17(4-12), 18(3-14), 38(1-12), 41(1-16), 42(1-10) admeasuring 13 bighas 04 biswa (petitioner is having 1/12th share) situated at the revenue estate of village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Delhi, was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23.09.1989 followed by declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act on 20.06.1990 for Planned Development of Delhi. In pursuance of said notification, notices under section 9 and 10 as provided under the Act, were issued to the interested persons, inviting the claims from all the interested persons and claims were also filed by the interested persons including the predecessors in interest of the present petitioners with respect to the above said land in question. The then Land Acquisition Collector passed Award No. 8/92-93 dated 19.06.1992 after considering the claims of the claimants. It is pertinent to mention here that the bearing Khasra No. 861/639(1-15) is not acquired.
7. That the possession of the land in question was taken over and handed over to the beneficiary department on 21.03.2007. However, the compensation amount is not paid to the recorded owner.”
3. However, thereafter, without taking into consideration the factum of taking the possession of the land in question and handing over the same to the beneficiary, by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others , (2014) 3 SCC 183 and other decisions and solely on the ground that the compensation with respect to the land in question is not tendered.
4. However, the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has been specifically overruled by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others , (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 Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183, is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183, has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. vs. State of Tamil Nadu , (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 vs. Shailendra , (2018) 3 SCC 412, the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether “or” has
