Holding

Satisfaction of either possession of the acquired land or payment of compensation is sufficient to prevent a deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Summary

The Land and Building Department appealed a Delhi High Court order that held the acquisition of land in Ghonda, Delhi had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been paid. The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Misirimal Solanki, interpreting the provision to require both possession and payment within five years. The Supreme Court examined the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which overruled Pune Municipal and held that satisfaction of either possession or compensation suffices to prevent lapse. The Court found that possession of the land was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector on 6‑December‑2012 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority, thereby meeting one of the conditions. Consequently, the acquisition was not deemed to have lapsed and the High Court order was set aside. The Court also directed that the respondents be paid compensation as per their entitlement.

Issues considered

Whether the acquisition of land lapses under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 when only possession, but not compensation, has been effected.
Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal supersedes the earlier interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Misirimal Solanki.
Whether the possession of the land in question was lawfully taken and thus sufficient to sustain the acquisition.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 16, s. 17, s. 31, s. 34, s. 4, s. 6
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013s. 24(1)(a), s. 24(1)(b), s. 24(2), s. 31, s. 34

Subjects

Land acquisitionSection 24(2)PossessionCompensationDeemed lapseIndore Development AuthorityPune Municipal CorporationDelhi Development AuthorityBharatmala PariyojanaConstitution Bench

Judgment

374 [2023]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 3 S.C.R. 374 [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THR. SECRETARY &
ANR.
v.
ATTRO DEVI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2749 of 2023)
B
APRIL 11, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) –
C Notification u/s 4 was issued on 23.06.1989 – Another notification
u/s 6 was issued on 20.06.1990 – Award announced on 19.06.1992
– Respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming that
neither possession was taken over nor compensation was paid thus
the acquisition had lapsed u/s 24(2) – The appellant’s stand before
the High Court was that the possession of the land was taken on
D 06.12.2012 but compensation could not be paid to the recorded
land owners as they never claimed the same – High court relied on
the case of Pune Municipal Corporation’s for interpretation of s.24(2)
as per which possession as well as payment must be complete, within
five years and since compensation has not been paid the acquisition
E in question has lapsed – On appeal, held: Pune Municipal
Corporation case had been overruled by Indore Development
Authority’s caseas per which 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 – In the
case at hand, the possession of the land was taken over by the
F Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to Delhi Development
Authority, hence, one of the conditions being satisfied thus there is
no deemed lapse and the acquisition is sustained – Judgment of
High Court unsustainable – Accordingly, set aside.
Disposing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore
Development Authority’s case 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 acquisition from being lapsed in terms of
H Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. [Para 11][377-F-G]
374
LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THR. SECRETARY v. 375
ATTRO DEVI & ORS.

2. It is a fact to be noticed and taken care of that large A
chunk of land is acquired for planned development to take care
of immediate need and also keep buffer for future requirements.
Such portion of land may be lying vacant also. As has been
observed in Indore Development Authority’s case by this court,
the State agencies are not supposed to put police force to protect
B
possession of the land taken after process of acquisition is
complete. As far as the case in hand is concerned, the land even
if lying vacant, is required now for a project of national importance.
[Para 13][382-B-D]
3. It is the undisputed fact on the record, as has been noticed
in the impugned order passed by the High Court, the possession C
of the land was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector and
handed over to Delhi Development Authority. Report of
possession proceedings dated 06.12.2012 has also been placed
on record. Hence, one of the conditions being satisfied, no need
to examine any other argument. [Para 14][382-E] D
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki
& Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783 –
referred to. E

Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 7
[2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 7
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2749
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No. 10075 of 2015.
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul G
Pandey, Rajiv Ranjan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Adv., Rakesh Kumar -I, Narendra Kumar,
Sataroop Das, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh
Kaushik, Sumit Gupta, Prateek Madnani, Govind, Rahul Shyam Bhandari,
Advs. for the Respondents. H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
B 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.
C
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,
D 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
E 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.
F 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.
G 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
H
LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THR. SECRETARY v. 377
ATTRO DEVI & ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

Constitution Bench that compliance of either of the two conditions i.e. A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
conditions namely either taking possession of the acquired land or payment
of compensation to the landowners would be sufficient to save the
acquisition from being lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Various questions posed before the Constitution Bench of this Court
were also answered. Relevant para-Nos. 362 and 366 are extracted
below: G
“362. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. (supra) is hereby overruled and all other
decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has
been followed, are also overruled. …
... H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A 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.
B 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
C 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
D 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
E has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is
no lapse.
(emphasis supplied)
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2)
F 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
G 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
H
LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THR. SECRETARY v. 379
ATTRO DEVI & ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

to the majority of holdings for five years or more, A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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). E

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 F
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 G
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
H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.”
12. The issue as to what is meant by “possession of the land by
the State after its acquisition” has also been considered by Constitution
B Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority’s
case (supra). It is opined therein that after the acquisition of land and
passing of award, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances.
The vesting of land with the State is with possession. Any person retaining
the possession thereafter has to be treated trespasser. When large chunk
C of land is acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person or
police force to retain the possession and start cultivating on the land till it
is utilized. The Government is also not supposed to start residing or
physically occupying the same once process of the acquisition is complete.
If after the process of acquisition is complete and land vest in the State
free from all encumbrances with possession, any person retaining the
D land or any re-entry made by any person is nothing else but trespass on
the State land. Relevant paragraphs 244, 245 and 256 are extracted
below:
“244. Section 16 of the Act of 1894 provided that possession
of land may be taken by the State Government after passing
E
of an award and thereupon land vest free from all
encumbrances in the State Government. Similar are the
provisions made in the case of urgency in Section 17(1). The
word “possession” has been used in the Act of 1894, whereas
in Section 24(2) of Act of 2013, the expression “physical
F possession” is used. It is submitted that drawing of panchnama
for taking over the possession is not enough when the actual
physical possession remained with the landowner and Section
24(2) requires actual physical possession to be taken, not the
possession in any other form. When the State has acquired
G the land and award has been passed, land vests in the State
Government free from all encumbrances. The act of vesting
of the land in the State is with possession, any person retaining
the possession, thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser and
has no right to possess the land which vests in the State free
from all encumbrances.
H
LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT THR. SECRETARY v. 381
ATTRO DEVI & ORS. [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]

245. The question which arises whether there is any difference A
between taking possession under the Act of 1894 and the
expression “physical possession” used in Section 24(2). As a
matter of fact, what was contemplated under the Act of 1894,
by taking the possession meant only physical possession of
the land. Taking over the possession under the Act of 2013
B
always amounted to taking over physical possession of the
land. When the State Government acquires land and drawns
up a memorandum of taking possession, that amounts to
taking the physical possession of the land. On the large chunk
of property or otherwise which is acquired, the Government
is not supposed to put some other person or the police force C
in possession to retain it and start cultivating it till the land is
used by it for the purpose for which it has been acquired.
The Government is not supposed to start residing or to
physically occupy it once possession has been taken by
drawing the inquest proceedings for obtaining possession
D
thereof. Thereafter, if any further retaining of land or any re-
entry is made on the land or someone starts cultivation on the
open land or starts residing in the outhouse, etc., is deemed
to be the trespasser on land which in possession of the State.
The possession of trespasser always inures for the benefit of
the real owner that is the State Government in the case. E
xxxx
256. Thus, it is apparent that vesting is with possession and
the statute has provided under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act
of 1894 that once possession is taken, absolute vesting
occurred. It is an indefeasible right and vesting is with F
possession thereafter. The vesting specified under Section 16,
takes place after various steps, such as, notification under
Section 4, declaration under Section 6, notice under Section
9, award under Section 11 and then possession. The statutory
provision of vesting of property absolutely free from all G
encumbrances has to be accorded full effect. Not only the
possession vests in the State but all other encumbrances are
also removed forthwith. The title of the landholder ceases
and the state becomes the absolute owner and in possession
of the property. Thereafter there is no control of the landowner
H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R.

A over the property. He cannot have any animus to take the
property and to control it. Even if he has retained the
possession or otherwise trespassed upon it after possession
has been taken by the State, he is a trespasser and such
possession of trespasser enures for his benefit and on behalf
of the owner.”
B
(emphasis supplied)
13. It is also a fact to be noticed and taken care of that large
chunk of land is acquired for planned development to take care of
immediate need and also keep buffer for future requirements. Such portion
C of land may be lying vacant also. As has been observed in Indore
Development Authority’s case(supra) by this Court, the State agencies
are not supposed to put police force to protect possession of the land
taken after process of acquisition is complete. As far as the case in hand
is concerned, the land even if was lying vacant, is required now for a
project of national importance for construction of the Delhi-Saharanpur-
D Dehradun Highway starting from Akshardham Junction to Delhi/UP
Border, in the State of Delhi in Phase-I of Bharatmala Pariyojana.
14. It is the undisputed fact on the record, as has been noticed in
the impugned order passed by the High Court, the possession of the land
was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to
E Delhi Development Authority. Report of possession proceedings dated
06.12.2012 has also been placed on record. Hence, one of the conditions
being satisfied, we need not examine any other argument.
15. Keeping in view the aforesaid fact and the law laid down by
the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority’s
F case (supra), in our opinion the order passed by the High Court cannot
be legally sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. However, the
respondents shall be entitled to receive compensation as per their
entitlement. The Land Acquisition Officer should also take steps to pay
the same to the rightful owner.
G 16. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Ankit Gyan Appeal disposed of.
(Assisted by : Shraddha Singh and Aarsh Choudhary, LCRAs)

H