[2023] 1 S.C.R. 427 427 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI A v. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 352 of 2023) FEBRUARY 10, 2023 B [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Lapse under – Land acquisition proceedings C – Challenge to – Writ proceedings – Relying upon the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation on the ground that compensation with respect to the land in question was not paid, the High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that acquisition in respect of the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – Decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation has however D been overruled by Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority – Accordingly, for purpose of lapsing the acquisition u/s.24(2), the twin conditions namely, not taking the possession and not paying the compensation have to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any E lapse of the acquisition – Once possession of the land in question was taken over on 12.03.1981 then applying the law laid down in the case of Indore Development Authority the acquisition of the land in question is not deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – Impugned judgment passed by the High Court is unsustainable. F Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.

Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakch and Misrimal Solanki & Ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 – held overruled. G Case Law Reference [2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 2 (2014) 3 SCC 183 held overruled Para 2 H 427 428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 352 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.1399 of 2014. Chandan Kumar, Chandra Prakash, Vivek Singh, C. P. Rajwar, B Ms. Somi Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Jasbir Singh Malik, Ram Chandra Madam, Varun Punia, Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1399 of 2014, by which, D the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question 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 “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal. E

2. It is true that there is a huge delay in preferring the appeal which is vehemently opposed by Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent(s) – original writ petitioner, however, taking into consideration the other similar orders passed by different benches in condoning such delay F in preferring the appeal challenging the order(s) passed by the very High Court declaring that the acquisition is lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and taking into consideration the fact that while passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has relied upon and/or followed the earlier decision of this Court in the case of G Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 which has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and the observations made in paragraph 365 which is reproduced hereinbelow, in which it is H GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. 429 [M. R. SHAH, J.] observed that all the decisions in which the decision in the case of A Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) have been relied upon stand overruled, we condone the delay and consider the appeal on merits.

3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even as observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order, as such the possession of the land B in question was taken over as far as back on 12.03.1981. However, thereafter relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) on the ground that the compensation with respect to the land in question was not paid, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition in Crespect of the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

4. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) relied upon by the High Court has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of DIndore Development Authority (supra). In paragraphs 365 and 366, it is 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 E 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 F 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 G 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 H 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 B 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 C “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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G 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, H GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. 431 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under A 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 B 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 C 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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.” 5. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court for the purpose of lapsing the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the twin conditions namely, not taking the possession and not paying the H 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R. A compensation have to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse of the acquisition. Therefore, once the possession of the land in question was taken over on 12.03.1981 then applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) the acquisition of the land in question is not deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of B the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, C the writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner before the High Court stands dismissed. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. D Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeal allowed. (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA) E F G H

[2023] 1 S.C.R. 427 427 GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI A v. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 352 of 2023) FEBRUARY 10, 2023 B [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – Lapse under – Land acquisition proceedings C – Challenge to – Writ proceedings – Relying upon the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation on the ground that compensation with respect to the land in question was not paid, the High Court allowed the writ petition and declared that acquisition in respect of the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – Decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation has however D been overruled by Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority – Accordingly, for purpose of lapsing the acquisition u/s.24(2), the twin conditions namely, not taking the possession and not paying the compensation have to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any E lapse of the acquisition – Once possession of the land in question was taken over on 12.03.1981 then applying the law laid down in the case of Indore Development Authority the acquisition of the land in question is not deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – Impugned judgment passed by the High Court is unsustainable. F Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.

Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakch and Misrimal Solanki & Ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 – held overruled. G Case Law Reference [2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 2 (2014) 3 SCC 183 held overruled Para 2 H 427 428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 352 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.05.2016 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.1399 of 2014. Chandan Kumar, Chandra Prakash, Vivek Singh, C. P. Rajwar, B Ms. Somi Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Jasbir Singh Malik, Ram Chandra Madam, Varun Punia, Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 1399 of 2014, by which, D the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the land acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question 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 “Act, 2013”), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal. E

2. It is true that there is a huge delay in preferring the appeal which is vehemently opposed by Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent(s) – original writ petitioner, however, taking into consideration the other similar orders passed by different benches in condoning such delay F in preferring the appeal challenging the order(s) passed by the very High Court declaring that the acquisition is lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and taking into consideration the fact that while passing the impugned judgment and order the High Court has relied upon and/or followed the earlier decision of this Court in the case of G Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 which has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 and the observations made in paragraph 365 which is reproduced hereinbelow, in which it is H GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. 429 [M. R. SHAH, J.] observed that all the decisions in which the decision in the case of A Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) have been relied upon stand overruled, we condone the delay and consider the appeal on merits.

3. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even as observed by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order, as such the possession of the land B in question was taken over as far as back on 12.03.1981. However, thereafter relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) on the ground that the compensation with respect to the land in question was not paid, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition in Crespect of the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

4. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) relied upon by the High Court has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of DIndore Development Authority (supra). In paragraphs 365 and 366, it is 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 E 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 F 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 G 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 H 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R.

A 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 B 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 C “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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G 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, H GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. SUSHIL KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. 431 [M. R. SHAH, J.]

it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under A 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 B 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 C 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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.” 5. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court for the purpose of lapsing the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the twin conditions namely, not taking the possession and not paying the H 432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 1 S.C.R. A compensation have to be satisfied and if one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be any lapse of the acquisition. Therefore, once the possession of the land in question was taken over on 12.03.1981 then applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) the acquisition of the land in question is not deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of B the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, C the writ petition preferred by the original writ petitioner before the High Court stands dismissed. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. D Bibhuti Bhushan Bose Appeal allowed. (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA) E F G H