JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellants have challenged the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi. Vide aforesaid order, writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed holding that in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the 2013 Act”), the acquisition in respect to the land in dispute, has lapsed.

4. From the facts of the case as are available on record, it is evident that vide notification dated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 large chunk of the land including the land of petitioner comprised in Khasra No.1 Etc/57/1 and Khasra No.1 Etc/58/1, situated in revenue estate of village Ghonda, Chauhan Khadar, New Delhi was sought to be acquired for planned development of Delhi. It was followed by the notification issued under Section 6 dated 20.06.1990. The Award was announced 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 06.12.2012 and handed over to the DDA on the spot. The compensation could not be paid to the recorded land owners as they never came forward to claim the same.

6. The High Court relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 held that since the compensation was not paid to the landowners, i.e., the respondents herein, the acquisition in question has lapsed.

7. The arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for the appellants are that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby earlier judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.’s case (supra) was overruled, the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside. It was opined by the Constitution Bench that compliance of either of the two conditions i.e. taking over of possession of the land or payment of compensation, is good enough to sustain the acquisition. From the undisputed facts available on record it is evident that in the present case, the possession of land in dispute was taken after the acquisition was complete.

8. Additionally, an important fact brought to our attention is that the subject land is required by NHAI for construction of the Delhi-Saharanpur-Dehradun Highway starting from Akshardham Junction to Delhi/UP Border, in the State of Delhi in Phase-I of Bharatmala Pariyojana. Even the contractors have been appointed to execute the project, which may be delayed due to pendency of the present appeal. The subject land is therefore a part of the project which is of national importance.

9. On the other hand, the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondents are that the writ petition having been decided on the basis of law as existing on the date of decision by the High Court cannot be set aside on the basis of the subsequent judgment of this Court. The High Court had held that compensation having not been paid, as per the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation’s case (supra), the acquisition proceedings lapsed. It is a matter of fact which has been noticed in the order passed by the High Court that the possession of the land had already been taken by the authority concerned.

10. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.

11. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority's case (supra) had opined that satisfaction of either of the conditions namely either taking possession of the acquired land or payment of compensation to the landowners would be sufficient to save the a