1. Land acquisition proceedings under Act 1894 — Claim of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of Act 2013 — Dispute over possession and compensation. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 107
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Sh. Narender & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 740 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 2493 of 2023) (@ Diary No. 10609 of 2021)
Decided on : 09-02-2023
Important Points
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question concluded land acquisition proceedings.
Subject
Land Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The court discussed the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894. The court referred to the overruling of previous decisions by a Constitution Bench and provided detailed interpretations of Section 24(2), emphasizing that it does not give rise to new cause of action to question concluded proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court declared that land acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 with respect to a specific land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The government appealed this decision.Finding of the Court:
The High Court's decision was quashed and set aside as it was found unsustainable based on the law laid down by a Constitution Bench regarding the interpretation of Section 24(2).Issues:
Applicability and interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894.Ratio Decidendi:
The court emphasized that Section 24(2) does not give rise to new cause of action to question concluded proceedings and does not reopen or invalidate acquisition proceedings.Final Decision:
The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's decision was quashed and set aside.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Bhatia, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Manish Vashist, Adv. Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Ms. Abhivyakti Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Garg, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Bhatia, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Manish Vashist, Adv. Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv. Ms. Abhivyakti Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Garg, Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sunieta Ojha, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of Act 2013 despite possession being taken by the authorities. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court relied on overruled precedent; under current law, taking possession of land prevents the deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of Act 2013 occurs only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — Land acquisition proceedings held not to have lapsed. (Para 4 )
6. When does land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Lapse occurs only if authorities failed to both take possession and 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 3 )
7. Does the deposit of compensation in court prevent the lapse of acquisition proceedings?
Non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. However, non-deposit for the majority of holdings may entitle landowners to compensation under the 2013 Act. (Para 3 )
8. What is the effect of tendering compensation under the 1894 Act on the claim of lapse?
If compensation is tendered under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, the obligation to pay is complete. Landowners who refuse acceptance or seek higher compensation cannot claim the acquisition has lapsed. (Para 3 )
9. Does Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act allow for the reopening of concluded acquisition proceedings?
No, Section 24(2) applies only to proceedings pending as of January 1, 2014. It does not revive stale claims, reopen concluded proceedings, or allow questioning the legality of the mode of possession. (Para 3 )
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. 10670 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner and has declared that the land 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 Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even from the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and original respondents that the possession of the land in question was taken on 14.09.2007. However, despite the above, 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 land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act, 1894 of the subject land is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
3. However, it is required to be noted that the 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 overruled by the Constitution Bench decision 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
