O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

3. The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ - C No.65339 of 2015, whereby the High Court has allowed the said Writ Petition and declared that the land acquisition proceedings, insofar as the respondents (original petitioners) were concerned, had lapsed under the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”). The High Court had also consequently set aside the impugned auction notice dated 19.07.2014.

4. It is required to be noted that the impugned order was passed by the High Court relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others, (2014) 3 sec 183. However, now, in view of the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, in which the said decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been overruled, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in terms of the said judgment. The relevant observations made by this Court in the said judgment are as under:-

“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn.[Pune Municipal Corpn. Vs. 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 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 298] 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 [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(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act.

366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non- deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).

366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).

366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.

366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”

5. In view of the above, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside.

6. The Civil Appeal is allowed accordingly.

7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

......................J.

(BELA M. TRIVEDI)

......................J.

(PANKAJ MITHAL)

NEW DELHI;

01ST FEBRUARY, 2024.

ITEM NO.10 COURT NO.14 SECTION XI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).22164/2018

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-01-2018 in WRIT-C No.65339/2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad)

MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant(s)

VERSUS AJAY GUPTA (D) THR. LR & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 106587/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 01-02-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL For Appellant(s) Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, AOR Mr. Prateek Yadav, Adv.

Mr. Puran Mal Saini, Adv.

Mr. Pati Raj Yadav, Adv.

Mr. Yogesh Yadav, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. In terms of the signed order, the Civil Appeal is allowed.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

(RAVI ARORA) (MAMTA RAWAT)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

(signed order is placed on the file)