# DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BATTI & ORS

- **Citation:** [2023] 3 S.C.R. 631
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-03-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2023
- **Bench:** Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/delhi-development-authority-v-batti-ors-36923
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s. 24(2) -
Respondent was the daughter-in-law of the deceased - The deceased
was alleged owner of the land with respect to which the land
acquisition proceeding took place and the award was announced
by the land acquisition collector - Respondent approached the High
Court contending that the possession of the land have not be taken
and the compensation not being paid hence the acquisition has
lapsed - The High Court found that as a matter of fact, the
possession was taken by the State but relying upon Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. held that
since the compensation was not paid, therefore the acquisition in
question has lapsed - On appeal, held: The judgment in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Another was overruled by the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority - The
facts admitted on record it is evident that the possession of the land
was taken after the acquisition of land was complete - However,
compensation was not paid - There is nothing on record to suggest
as to what action was taken by the person who claimed interest in
the property to seek compensation, in case land owned by him was
acquired more than two decades back and no compensation paid -
The conditions laid down in the Indore Development Authority were
not satisfied - Therefore, there cannot be lapsing of acquisition of
land.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the
High Court shows that the Writ Petition was allowed relying upon
the judgement of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and
Another's case. The case set by the writ petitioner was that late
H was the recorded owner of the land as noticed in para 2 of the
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 631
631
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
judgment. The writ petitioner is his daughter--in--law. Even the
husband of the writ petitioner had expired when the writ petition
was filed. It was claimed that late H was having bhoomidari rights,
however in terms of the stand taken by the appellant, no surviving
membership was placed on record. Definite and undisputed stand
taken by the respondent before the High Court was that the
possession of the land was taken after the award was announced
and the same was handed over to the Forest Department for
development as green belt, agriculture and water body as the
land falls in 'O' Zone. [Para 13][637-E-F]
2. Initially, the stand sought to be taken by the writ
petitioner before the High Court was that the physical possession
of the land had not been taken, however, the same was given up.
The only argument pressed was that the compensation be paid
as per the provisions of the 2013 Act. The Writ Petition was
allowed relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal
Corporation and Another's case. The High Court had also noticed
the fact that there was dispute about title of the property which
as per the stand taken by both the parties was kept open.
Meaning thereby, even the compensation could not have been
paid to the predecessor interest of the respondent/ writ petitioner.
There is nothing on record to suggest as to what action was taken
by the person who claimed interest in the property to seek
compensation, in case land owned by him was acquired more than
two decades back and no compensation paid. The litigation started
only with enactment of Act of 2013. The ingredients of Section
24(2) of 2013 Act as interpreted by this Court in Indore
Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others's case are not
satisfied in the case in hand. There cannot be lapsing of acquisition
of land. [Paras 14, 15][637-G-H; 638-A-C]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
SCR 783 - referred to.
A
B
C
D

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
631
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
BATTI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1918 of 2023)
MARCH 22, 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) -
Respondent was the daughter-in-law of the deceased - The deceased
was alleged owner of the land with respect to which the land
acquisition proceeding took place and the award was announced
by the land acquisition collector - Respondent approached the High
Court contending that the possession of the land have not be taken
and the compensation not being paid hence the acquisition has
lapsed - The High Court found that as a matter of fact, the
possession was taken by the State but relying upon Pune Municipal
Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. held that
since the compensation was not paid, therefore the acquisition in
question has lapsed - On appeal, held: The judgment in Pune
Municipal Corporation and Another was overruled by the Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority - The
facts admitted on record it is evident that the possession of the land
was taken after the acquisition of land was complete - However,
compensation was not paid - There is nothing on record to suggest
as to what action was taken by the person who claimed interest in
the property to seek compensation, in case land owned by him was
acquired more than two decades back and no compensation paid -
The conditions laid down in the Indore Development Authority were
not satisfied - Therefore, there cannot be lapsing of acquisition of
land.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the
High Court shows that the Writ Petition was allowed relying upon
the judgement of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and
Another's case. The case set by the writ petitioner was that late
H was the recorded owner of the land as noticed in para 2 of the
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 631
631
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
632
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
judgment. The writ petitioner is his daughter--in--law. Even the
husband of the writ petitioner had expired when the writ petition
was filed. It was claimed that late H was having bhoomidari rights,
however in terms of the stand taken by the appellant, no surviving
membership was placed on record. Definite and undisputed stand
taken by the respondent before the High Court was that the
possession of the land was taken after the award was announced
and the same was handed over to the Forest Department for
development as green belt, agriculture and water body as the
land falls in 'O' Zone. [Para 13][637-E-F]
2. Initially, the stand sought to be taken by the writ
petitioner before the High Court was that the physical possession
of the land had not been taken, however, the same was given up.
The only argument pressed was that the compensation be paid
as per the provisions of the 2013 Act. The Writ Petition was
allowed relying upon the judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal
Corporation and Another's case. The High Court had also noticed
the fact that there was dispute about title of the property which
as per the stand taken by both the parties was kept open.
Meaning thereby, even the compensation could not have been
paid to the predecessor interest of the respondent/ writ petitioner.
There is nothing on record to suggest as to what action was taken
by the person who claimed interest in the property to seek
compensation, in case land owned by him was acquired more than
two decades back and no compensation paid. The litigation started
only with enactment of Act of 2013. The ingredients of Section
24(2) of 2013 Act as interpreted by this Court in Indore
Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others's case are not
satisfied in the case in hand. There cannot be lapsing of acquisition
of land. [Paras 14, 15][637-G-H; 638-A-C]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand
Misrimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
SCR 783 - referred to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
633
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 08
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 11
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1918
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 12135 of 2015.
With
Civil Appeal No. 1919 of 2023.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This order will dispose of two appeals arising out of order dated
30.11.2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in
W.P(C) No. 12135/2015. One appeal is preferred by Delhi Development
Authority whereas the another has been filed by Government of NCT
of Delhi.
3. The service on respondent is complete. However, no one
appeared when the appeal was taken up for hearing.
4. The facts of the cases are available on record. Vide notification
dated 23.06.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (For short, 'the Act') large chunk of the land measuring about
3,500 Hectares was sought to be acquired for planned development of
part of Delhi. It was followed by notification issued on June 20, 1990
under Section 6 of the Act. The Award bearing No. 13/92-93 was
announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (DS), Delhi on 19.06.1992.
5. It is evident from the facts noticed by the High Court in the
impugned order that husband of the respondent late Mange Ram was
son of late Harkesh. He was father-in-law of the respondent no.1- writ
petitioner. He was claimed to be the recorded owner of 1/12th share [01
bigha and 19 biswas and 03 biswansi] in land bearing Khasra Nos. 281/
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BATTI & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
4(10-11), 282/4 (10-3) and 80(2-8) total area measuring 23 bighas and 2
biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Ghari Mandu, Shahdara,
Delhi.
6. There is nothing on record to suggest the acquisition in question
was ever challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.1.
The writ petition came to be filed in the year 2015 referring to Section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the
2013 Act") claiming that the possession of land having not been taken
and the compensation not paid, the acquisition has lapsed.
7. The High Court noticed the fact that the possession of the land
had been taken by the State and handed over to the Forest Department
for development as green belt, agriculture and water body as the land
falls in 'O' Zone. It was further pleaded that respondent no.1 was not
entitled to receive any compensation as the land, in fact, vested in Gaon
Sabha.
8. After considering the arguments raised by learned counsel
appearing for the parties, the High Court, while relying upon the judgment
of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 held that the acquisition
in question has lapsed qua the land of the respondent no.1 as the
compensation therefor had not been tendered. The issue regarding
entitlement of compensation to the respondent as there was dispute
regarding the title of the land, was kept open.
9. The arguments raised by learned counsel appearing for the
appellant are that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of this
Court in Indore Development Authority vs. 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 to be set aside. It was opined by the
Constitution Bench that compliance to 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 in hand, from the
facts admitted on record it is evident that the possession of the land was
taken after the acquisition was complete. There was no question of
payment of compensation to predecessor in interest of the respondent
no.1 as admittedly there was dispute regarding title of the land. The
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
635
land is recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha. Even the High Court in
the impugned order had kept the question of title open.
10. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
11. There is no dispute on the fact that the judgment of this Court
in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another's case (supra), was relied
upon by the High Court to hold that the acquisition in question had
lapsed. It was overruled by the Constitution Bench judgment of this
Court in the Indore Development Authority's case (supra). Para 362
thereof is extracted below:
"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."
12. Various questions required to be considered by the Constitution
Bench were answered in para 366 of the judgment. The same read as
under:
"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
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BATTI & ORS.
[RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
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).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
637
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."
13. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Court
shows that the Writ Petition was allowed relying upon the judgement of
this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another's case (supra).
The case set by the writ petitioner was that late Harkesh was the recorded
owner of the land as noticed in para 2 of the judgment. The writ petitioner
is his daughter-in-law. Even the husband of the writ petitioner had expired
when the writ petition was filed. It was claimed that late Harkesh was
having bhoomidari rights, however in terms of the stand taken by the
appellant, no surviving membership was placed on record. Definite and
undisputed stand taken by the respondent before the High Court was
that the possession of the land was taken after the award was announced
and the same was handed over to the Forest Department for development
as green belt, agriculture and water body as the land falls in 'O' Zone.
14. Initially, the stand sought to be taken by the writ petitioner
before the High Court was that the physical possession of the land had
not been taken, however, the same was given up. The only argument
pressed was that the compensation be paid as per the provisions of the
2013 Act. The Writ Petition was allowed relying upon the judgment of
this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Another's case (supra).
The High Court had also noticed the fact that there was dispute about
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BATTI & ORS.
[RAJESH BINDAL, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
638
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
title of the property which as per the stand taken by both the parties was
kept open. Meaning thereby, even the compensation could not have been
paid to the predecessor interest of the respondent/ writ petitioner. There
is nothing on record to suggest as to what action was taken by the person
who claimed interest in the property to seek compensation, in case land
owned by him was acquired more than two decades back and no
compensation paid. The litigation started only with enactment of Act of
2013
15. For the reasons recorded above, the present appeal deserves
to be allowed as the ingredients of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act as interpreted
by this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and
Others's case (supra) are not satisfied in the case in hand. There cannot
be lapsing of acquisition of land.
16. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order
passed by the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by the
respondents in the High Court stands dismissed.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Mahendra Yadav, LCRA)