1. Land acquisition proceedings — 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 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 112
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Sushil Kumar Gupta & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 352 OF 2023 (@ SLP (C) NO. 1488 OF 2023) (@ DIARY NO. 25267 OF 2022)
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Once possession of land in question was taken over on 12.03.1981 then acquisition of land in question is not deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Lapse of land acquisition proceeding – Once possession of land in question was taken over on 12.03.1981 then acquisition of land in question is not deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of Right to 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 – Non-payment of amount of compensation – For the purpose of lapsing acquisition under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013, twin conditions namely, not taking possession and not paying compensation have to be satisfied and if one of conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse of acquisition – Once possession of land in question was taken over on 12.03.1981 then acquisition of land in question is not deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 – Under the circumstances, impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is unsustainable. (Paras 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1399 of 2014, by which, High Court has allowed writ petition and has declared that land acquisition proceedings in respect of 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, Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, writ petition preferred by original writ petitioner before High Court stands dismissed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C.P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Ms. Somi Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Hemlata Rao, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Chandra Prakash, AOR Mr. C.P. Rajwar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Singh, Adv. Ms. Somi Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Hemlata Rao, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Mr. Nitin Mishra, AOR.
Table of Contents
2. Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when 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 either possession is taken or compensation is paid. (Para 2 , 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 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment quashed and set aside — Writ petition dismissed. (Para 6 )
6. When does land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Lapse occurs only when both the possession of land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to the Act's commencement. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Does the non-payment of compensation lead to a 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 4 , 5 )
8. Does the deposit of compensation in court constitute payment under Section 24(2)?
The expression paid does not include deposit in court; however, non-deposit does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. (Para 4 )
9. Can Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act be used to reopen concluded land acquisition proceedings?
No. Section 24(2) applies only to proceedings pending as of January 1, 2014, and does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded proceedings. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1399 of 2014, by which, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of 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 Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. It is true that there is a huge delay in preferring the appeal which is vehemently opposed by Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent(s) – original writ petitioner, however, taking into consideration the other similar orders passed by different benches in condoning such delay in preferring the appeal challenging the order(s) passed by the very High Court declaring that the acquisition is lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and taking into consideration the fact that while passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has relied upon and/or followed the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 which has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and the observations made in paragraph 365 which is reproduced hereinbelow, in which it is observed that all the decisions in which the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) have been relied upon stand overruled, we condone the delay and consider the appeal on merits.
3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even as observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order, as such the possession of the land in question was taken over as far as back on 12.03.1981. However, thereafter relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) on the ground that the compensation with respect to the land in question was not paid, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition in respect of the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
4. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) relied upon by the High Court has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). In paragraphs 365 and 366, it is 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 aw
