1. Appeal against High Court order declaring land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-taking of possession of a small portion. (Para 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1814
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Land Acquisition Collector (NW) - Appellant
Versus
Vivek & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 939 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3099/2023 @ D. No. 27645/2022)
Decided on : 09-02-2023
Important Points
Land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act lapses only if both possession was not taken and compensation was not paid for five years prior to the Act's commencement. If either possession is taken or compensation is paid, there is no lapse, as held in Indore Development Authority.
Subject
Land Law - Land Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Acquisition deemed to have lapsed where non-action for five years has occurred and both possession has not been taken nor compensation paid - High Court's reliance on overruled decision invalidates its finding. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) The Supreme Court clarified that non-deposit of compensation does not result in the lapse of proceedings if possession has been taken or compensation was tendered - The law regarding land acquisition is clarified to prevent misuse. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
The Land Acquisition Collector challenged a High Court ruling deeming part of a land acquisition to have lapsed under Section 24(2) based on prior unsuccessful awards made under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the High Court's ruling unsustainable and redirected the matter for reconsideration on merits.
Issues: Whether the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed due to inaction for five years and the interpretation of Section 24(2) concerning possession and compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that merely failing to deposit compensation does not authorize the lapse of acquisition if the landowner was tendered compensation, and it endorsed the clarification on the interpretation of Section 24(2).
Result: Appeal allowed in part; matter remanded to High Court.
(B) The Supreme Court clarified that non-deposit of compensation does not result in the lapse of proceedings if possession has been taken or compensation was tendered - The law regarding land acquisition is clarified to prevent misuse. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
The Land Acquisition Collector challenged a High Court ruling deeming part of a land acquisition to have lapsed under Section 24(2) based on prior unsuccessful awards made under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the High Court's ruling unsustainable and redirected the matter for reconsideration on merits.
Issues: Whether the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed due to inaction for five years and the interpretation of Section 24(2) concerning possession and compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that merely failing to deposit compensation does not authorize the lapse of acquisition if the landowner was tendered compensation, and it endorsed the clarification on the interpretation of Section 24(2).
Result: Appeal allowed in part; matter remanded to High Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv., Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv., Mr. Rajinde Juneja, Adv., Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv., Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR, Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. Sumit Bansal, Adv., Mr. Udaibir Singh Kochar, Adv., Mr. Rajinde Juneja, Adv., Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Adv., Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR, Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to High Court's declaration of lapse based on overruled precedent despite payment of compensation for the acquired land. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The High Court relied on a decision subsequently overruled by a Constitution Bench regarding the interpretation of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. (Para 5 )
4. Deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act occurs only if both possession was not taken and compensation was not paid. (Para 5 )
5. Impugned judgment set aside and matter remanded to High Court for fresh decision in accordance with the law laid down in Indore Development Authority. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. When does land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Lapse occurs only when authorities fail 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 5 )
7. Does the deposit of compensation in court constitute payment under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
The expression paid does not include a deposit of compensation in court. However, the non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. (Para 5 )
8. Does Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act allow for the reopening of concluded land acquisition proceedings?
No, Section 24(2) applies only to proceedings pending as of January 1, 2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims, reopen concluded proceedings, or allow landowners to question the legality of the mode of taking possession. (Para 5 )
9. What is the legal effect of tendering compensation under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act?
The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Landowners who refuse to accept compensation or seek reference for higher compensation cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2). (Para 5 )
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.5225 of 2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to only small portion of the land acquired 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 “the 2013 Act”), the Land Acquisition Collector, Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
5. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector [LAC] before the High Court, it appears in para 4 & 5, which reads as under:-
“4. That it is submitted that the lands of village Mangolpur Kalan were notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 dated 24.10.1961 which was followed by Notification under section 6 of the said Act vide Notification dated 25.07.1966. That it is submitted that the then Land Acquisition Collector also passed an Award No.18/80-81 dated on 23.04.1980.
5. That it is submitted that the possession of the land bearing khasra no. 29/15 (5-07) of village- Mangolpur Kalan is in ownership right of Gram Sabha (Full Share). Possession of Khara no. 29/15 min (5-0) was duly taken on 01.05.1980 and possession of remaining area i.e. (0-7) was not taken due to built up. However, the awarded compensation with respect to the said land which was taken over, has been released to Gram Sabha through its Pradhan on 03.02.1982.”
However, despite the above, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition and has declared the acquisition with respect to the land ad-measuring (0-7) out of 5 bighas and 7 biswas is deemed to have lapsed. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), which been relied upon by the High Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order, has been subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. reported in 2020 (8) SCC 129. In Paragraphs 365 and 366, this Court has observed and held as under:
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association 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, 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 acquisit
