SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Friday, September 12, 2025
Printed For: Mahira Saraf, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 SCC OnLine SC 153
In the Supreme Court of India
(BEFORE M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.)
Land and Building Department and Another …
Appellant(s);
Versus
Manish Sethi and Others … Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 945 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 3119 of 2023) (@
Diary No. 28000 of 2022)
Decided on February 17, 2023
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant(s) Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR
Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv.
Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Avs Kadyan, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M.R. SHAH, J.:— Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 6060 of 2014 by which the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition 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 “Act, 2013”), the Land and Building
Department and the Land Acquisition Collector have preferred the
present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it is apparent that the High Court has allowed the said writ
petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land
in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013 relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki reported in
(2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that the compensation has not
been tendered and/or paid to the landowners. However, it is required to
be noted that before the High Court, it was the specific case on behalf
of the appellant that the possession of the land in question was taken
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Friday, September 12, 2025
Printed For: Mahira Saraf, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on 28.03.2007.
3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) has been overruled by the Constitution Bench of
this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129. 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 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 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 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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Friday, September 12, 2025
Printed For: Mahira Saraf, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Friday, September 12, 2025
Printed For: Mahira Saraf, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.”
4. In view of the above and considering the stand taken by the
appellant before the High Court that the possession of the disputed
land in question was taken on 28.03.2007 and applying the law laid
down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and
accordingly the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court is quashed and set aside. There shall not be any deemed lapse
under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as held by the High Court.
5. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/
regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be
liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice
rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All
disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of
this text must be verified from the original source.
