1. Land acquisition under Act, 1894 — Award passed and possession taken — Dispute over deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 207
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
Government of NCT of Delhi - Appellant(s)
Versus
Siddharth Kapoor & Ors. - Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1596 OF 2023 (@ SLP (C) NO. 4820 OF 2023) (@ DIARY NO. 14591 OF 2022)
Decided On : 13-03-2023
Important Points
Non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
Subject
Land Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition - Section 24(2) of Act, 2013; Section 11 of Act, 1894 - The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court analyzes the applicability of the deemed lapse provision under Section 24(2) to a land acquisition case where possession was taken but compensation was not paid. The court also refers to the overruling of previous decisions by a Constitution Bench regarding the interpretation of Section 24(2).
Fact of the Case:
The High Court declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed against this decision.Finding of the Court:
Applying the law laid down by a Constitution Bench, there shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside.Issues:
Interpretation and application of Section 24(2) of Act, 2013; Overruling previous decisions by a Constitution Bench.Ratio Decidendi:
The court relied on a Constitution Bench decision which clarified that for deemed lapse under Section 24(2), both possession not being taken and compensation not being paid must occur. It also emphasized that non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.Final Decision:
The appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mrs. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mrs. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Mrs. Sweety Singh, Adv. Mrs. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv. Ms. Vanya Agrawal, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of Act, 2013, given that possession was taken after the award was passed. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. The High Court relied on overruled precedent; under current law, acquisition does not lapse if possession has been taken or compensation has been paid. (Para 3 )
4. Appeal allowed — High Court order quashed — Land acquisition held not to have lapsed. (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. 2512 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition 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, it appears that the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with respect to the land in question was made as far as back on 12.07.2005. According to the appellant and so stated in the counter before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant that the possession of the land in question was taken on 31.08.2005. However, 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 allowed the writ petition and 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.
2.1 The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been heavily relied upon by the High Court while passing the impugned judgment and order has been subsequently overruled by this Court in the Constitution Bench decision 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(
