1. Land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act — Claim of lapse under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act — Dispute over non-payment of compensation despite taking possession. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 345
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Surender Singh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1548 of 2023 with Civil Appeal No. 1572 of 2023 with Civil Appeal No. 1549 of 2023 with Civil Appeal No. 1547 of 2023
Decided On : 11-04-2023
Important Points
Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, land acquisition proceedings do not lapse if either possession of the land is taken or compensation is paid. Satisfaction of any one of these two conditions is sufficient to sustain the acquisition, as established in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
Subject
Property Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Summary:
Fact of the Case:
The appeals involved cases where land acquisition notifications were issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Writ petitions were filed invoking Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that the acquisitions had lapsed due to non-possession and non-payment of compensation.Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the acquisitions had lapsed as compensation was not paid to the landowners. However, the Constitution Bench overruled previous judgments and held that either taking possession or payment of compensation is sufficient to sustain the acquisition.Issues:
Whether non-payment of compensation leads to lapse of land acquisition proceedings.Ratio Decidendi:
The satisfaction of either taking possession or payment of compensation is sufficient to save the acquisition from lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.Final Decision:
The orders passed by the High Court were set aside, and the writ petitions filed by the respondents were ordered to be dismissed.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Ishita Deswal, Adv. Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, 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. Mr. Sumit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Prateek Madnani, Adv. Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, AOR Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Abha Jain, AOR Mr. N.k.jain, Adv. Mr. Jaivir Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Misra, Adv. Ms. Deepika Mishra, Adv. Mr. Aniteja Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Sachit Setia, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Ishita Deswal, Adv. Ms. Prachi Bajpai, AOR Mr. Ashwani Kumar, AOR Mr. Anshay Dhatwalia, 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. Mr. Sumit Gupta, Adv. Mr. Prateek Madnani, Adv. Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, AOR Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Abha Jain, AOR Mr. N.k.jain, Adv. Mr. Jaivir Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Misra, Adv. Ms. Deepika Mishra, Adv. Mr. Aniteja Sharma, Adv. Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR Mr. Sachit Setia, Adv. Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants argue that taking possession is sufficient to prevent lapse under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act; respondents contend non-payment of compensation results in lapse. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. The court observed that taking possession of the acquired land is sufficient to save the acquisition from lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Para 17 , 18 )
4. Acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act lapses only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid for five years or more. (Para 17 )
5. High Court orders set aside — Appeals allowed — Writ petitions dismissed. (Para 19 )
6. When does land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Acquisition lapses only if both the possession of the land has not been taken and the compensation has not been paid for five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. (Para 17 )
7. Does the non-payment of compensation result in lapse if possession has been taken?
No. If possession of the land has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse even if the compensation has not been paid. (Para 17 , 18 )
8. Does depositing 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. (Para 17 )
9. Can a landowner claim lapse if they refused to accept the tendered compensation?
No. Landowners who refused to accept compensation or sought reference for higher compensation cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. This order will dispose of a bunch of appeals as common questions of law and fact are involved. The facts of the cases have been noticed separately.
FACTS:
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1548 OF 2023 (DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SURENDER SINGH & ORS)
2. As pleaded, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was issued on 21.03.2003 seeking to acquire land for Rohini Residential Scheme at Delhi. On 19.3.2004, Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award under Section 11 of the Act assessing compensation for the acquired land on 12.7.2005. The compensation amount of Rs. 80,40,76,004/- for the acquisition of the land was deposited by the State with the Land Acquisition Collector.
3. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “2013 Act”) claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed since neither possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid. The definite stand of the State before the High Court was that the possession of the land was taken on 31.08.2005 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. The title of the writ petitioners was in dispute. Hence, the compensation could not be paid to them. It was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector. The High Court after relying upon the judgment of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Manav Dharma Trust and another’s (2017) 6 SCC 751 held that petitioner therein had locus to file the writ petition though not being the recorded owner. It further relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & another v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and held that the acquisition has lapsed as the compensation had not been paid to the land owners. Though, the issue of title of the land was left open.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1572 OF 2023 (DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. RAM SINGH & ORS.)
4. From the facts as are available on record, it is evident that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.09.1989 proposing to acquire the land situated in the revenue estate of village Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Shahdra, Delhi, for the purpose of planned development of Delhi. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 20.06.1990 and award bearing no. 8/92-93 was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 19.06.1992.
5. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed as neither possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid. The appellant’s stand before the High Court was that the possession of the land was taken on 21.03.2007 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority for planned development of Delhi. The compensation could not be paid to the land owners as they never claimed the same.
6. The High Court relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation’s case (supra) held that the acquisition has lapsed as the compensation was not paid to the land owners.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1549 OF 2023 (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ANR. VS. GYAN CHAND & ORS.)
7. From the facts as are available on record, it is evident that notification under Section 4 of Act seeking to acquire the land situated in revenue estate of villages Tughlakabad, Delhi, was issued on 25.01.1965. The same was followed by notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 13.02.1969. The award bearing No. 50-A/1969-70 for the same was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 04.11.1981.
8. A writ petition was filed in the High Court invoking Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act claiming that the acquisition in question has lapsed since neither the possession has been taken nor the compensation therefor has been paid. The appellant’s stand before
