[2023] 2 S.C.R. 411 411 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A v. JAGAN SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.943 of 2023) FEBRUARY 17, 2023 B [M. R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR & SANJAY KAROL JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune C Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported as declared that the acquisition proceeding initiated w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as wherein it is held that once the D possession is taken over there shall not be deemed lapse u/s.24(2)– In the present case,even as per the finding recorded by the High Court,the physical possession of the subject land was admittedly taken– Impugned judgment setaside. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. E (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed. Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solankiand Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783–referred to. Case Law Reference F [2014] 1 SCR 783 referredto Para2 [2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 2.1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.943 of 2023. G From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2017 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3164 of 2015.

Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish Vashist, Advs. for the Appellant. H 411 412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3164 of 2015 by which the High Court B has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein – original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect to 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 C ‘the Act 2013’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal. 2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even as per the finding recorded by the High Court in para 3, the physical possession of the subject land was admittedly taken on 16.07.2007. However, thereafter relying upon the decision of this Court D in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the original petitioner, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed E to have lapsed.

2.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court has been specifically over-ruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the F case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. In the said decision it is specifically observed and held that once the possession was taken over there shall not be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. G In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has 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 all other decisions in H which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. JAGAN SINGH 413 [M. R. SHAH, J.] Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been A 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 decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra B

[(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. C 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 D 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 E 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 F 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. G

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 H 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. A (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 B 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.

C 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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G 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. H DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. JAGAN SINGH 415 [M. R. SHAH, J.] 366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to A 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 B 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.” 3. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and applying the same to the facts in Cthe case on hand the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

D 3.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed is hereby quashed and set aside. The original writ petition preferred by the respondent – original Ewrit petitioner filed before the High Court stands dismissed. Present appeal is allowed. No costs. Divya Pandey Appeal allowed. (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA) F G H

[2023] 2 S.C.R. 411 411 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A v. JAGAN SINGH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.943 of 2023) FEBRUARY 17, 2023 B [M. R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR & SANJAY KAROL JJ.] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) – High Court relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Pune C Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported as declared that the acquisition proceeding initiated w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/s.24(2) – On appeal, held: Decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. reported as wherein it is held that once the D possession is taken over there shall not be deemed lapse u/s.24(2)– In the present case,even as per the finding recorded by the High Court,the physical possession of the subject land was admittedly taken– Impugned judgment setaside. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. E (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed. Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solankiand Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783–referred to. Case Law Reference F [2014] 1 SCR 783 referredto Para2 [2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 2.1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.943 of 2023. G From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2017 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3164 of 2015.

Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik, Manish Vashist, Advs. for the Appellant. H 411 412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 24.01.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3164 of 2015 by which the High Court B has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein – original writ petitioner and has declared that the acquisition with respect to 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 C ‘the Act 2013’), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the present appeal. 2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and even as per the finding recorded by the High Court in para 3, the physical possession of the subject land was admittedly taken on 16.07.2007. However, thereafter relying upon the decision of this Court D in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that the compensation has not been paid to the original petitioner, the High Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed E to have lapsed.

2.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court has been specifically over-ruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the F case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. In the said decision it is specifically observed and held that once the possession was taken over there shall not be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. G In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court has 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 all other decisions in H which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. JAGAN SINGH 413 [M. R. SHAH, J.] Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] has been A 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 decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra B

[(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. C 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 D 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 E 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 F 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. G

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 H 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 2 S.C.R. A (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 B 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.

C 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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G 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. H DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. JAGAN SINGH 415 [M. R. SHAH, J.] 366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to A 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 B 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.” 3. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and applying the same to the facts in Cthe case on hand the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.

D 3.1 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed is hereby quashed and set aside. The original writ petition preferred by the respondent – original Ewrit petitioner filed before the High Court stands dismissed. Present appeal is allowed. No costs. Divya Pandey Appeal allowed. (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA) F G H