# DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEENA GUPTA (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2023] 1 S.C.R. 719
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-01-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.9287 of 2022
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, C. T. Ravikumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/delhi-development-authority-v-beena-gupta-d-through-lrs-ors-36774
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) -
Lapse of acquisition - On facts, the subject land was acquired in
the year 2007 by drawing panchnama - Same land was sold to the
respondent no. 1 in 2010 by the owner - Writ petition by the
respondent-original writ petitioner seeking declaration that
acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have
lapsed in view of s.24(2) on the ground that the compensation was
not paid - High Court allowed the petition - On appeal, held:
Subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition
and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013 - High Court
erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1,
subsequent purchaser who had acquired the right, title or interest
in the land in question subsequent to the acquisition proceedings,
subsequent to passing of the award - Even otherwise, on merits
also and in light of the decision in the case of Indore Development
Authority's case, the decision of the High Court is unsustainable -
Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
is quashed and set aside.
Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and
others (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
10 SCC 229; Delhi Administration Through Secretary,
Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil
Appeal No.3646 of 2022; Delhi Development Authority
versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal
No. 3073 of 2022 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2019) 10 SCC 229
relied on
Para 2.3
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 2.4, 2.7
 [2023] 1 S.C.R. 719
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
719
719
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
BEENA GUPTA (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.9287 of 2022)
JANUARY 16, 2023.
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24(2) -
Lapse of acquisition - On facts, the subject land was acquired in
the year 2007 by drawing panchnama - Same land was sold to the
respondent no. 1 in 2010 by the owner - Writ petition by the
respondent-original writ petitioner seeking declaration that
acquisition proceedings pertaining to subject land is deemed to have
lapsed in view of s.24(2) on the ground that the compensation was
not paid - High Court allowed the petition - On appeal, held:
Subsequent purchaser had no locus to challenge the acquisition
and/or lapsing of the acquisition under the Act, 2013 - High Court
erred in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent no.1,
subsequent purchaser who had acquired the right, title or interest
in the land in question subsequent to the acquisition proceedings,
subsequent to passing of the award - Even otherwise, on merits
also and in light of the decision in the case of Indore Development
Authority's case, the decision of the High Court is unsustainable -
Thus, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
is quashed and set aside.
Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and
others (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019)
10 SCC 229; Delhi Administration Through Secretary,
Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil
Appeal No.3646 of 2022; Delhi Development Authority
versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal
No. 3073 of 2022 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2019) 10 SCC 229
relied on
Para 2.3
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 2.4, 2.7
 [2023] 1 S.C.R. 719
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
720
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.9287
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2018 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3986 of 2018.
Ms. Malvika Kapila, Adv. for the Appellant.
Nitin Jain, Chand Qureshi, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3986 of 2018 by which the High Court
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
'the Act 2013'), the Delhi Development Authority has preferred the
present appeal.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that vide Notification
dated 17.06.2005 issued under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 large tract of the land measuring about 200 Bighas
falling in Village Mundaka was sought to be acquired. A declaration
under Section 6 of the Act was issued and published thereafter on
31.05.2006. In the present case the dispute is with respect to the land
measuring 1 Bigha and 2 Biswas out of Khasra No. 65/22/1. That, vide
sale deed dated 17.06.2005, the said land was purchased by one Ashok
Kumar and Raj Kumar Sharma. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.08.2005,
the aforesaid persons came to be mutated in the revenue records. That
thereafter vide GPA, Will, Affidavit, Agreement to sell and Receipt dated
11.05.2010 the aforesaid Raj Kumar Sharma sold 275 sq. yrds. land, out
of 11 Biswas owned by him, to respondent no.1 herein - original writ
petitioner. Thus, the respondent no.1 - original writ petitioner can be
said to be subsequent purchaser who acquired the right, title or interest
in the land in question much after the land acquisition proceedings and
the award was declared, which was declared on 31.05.2007.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
721
2.1
The respondent no.1 herein - original writ petitioner filed
the writ petition before the High Court to declare that the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the
ground that the compensation with respect to the land in
question is not paid.
2.2
Though it was specifically the case on behalf of the appellant
before the High Court so stated in the counter affidavit that
the possession of the land in question was taken over on
15.12.2007 by drawing the panchnama and that the original
writ petitioner being subsequent purchaser had no locus to
challenge the acquisition, by the impugned judgment and
order the High Court has entertained the writ petition
preferred by respondent no.1 - 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 Act, 2013.
2.3.
As held by this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr.
Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 which
has been subsequently followed by this Court in the case of
Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and
Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors., Civil Appeal
No.3646 of 2022 and Delhi Development Authority
versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. & Ors, Civil Appeal
No.3073 of 2022, the subsequent purchaser had no locus
to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition
under the Act, 2013. Under the circumstances the High
Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition
preferred by the respondent no.1 - original writ petitioner
- subsequent purchaser who had acquired the right, title or
interest in the land in question subsequent to the acquisition
proceedings, subsequent to passing of the award. Under
the circumstances the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court is unsustainable.
2.4
Even otherwise on merits also and in light of the subsequent
decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case
of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal
and others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 the impugned
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEENA GUPTA (D)
THROUGH LRS. & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring the
acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed is unsustainable.
2.5
As observed hereinabove it was the specific case on behalf
of the appellant before the High Court and so stated in the
counter before the High Court that the possession of the
land in question was taken over on 15.12.2007.
2.6
In the case of Indore Development Authority (supra)
the Constitution Bench of this Court in paragraph 366 has
observed and held 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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
723
of compensation in court. The consequence of nondeposit 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).
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. BEENA GUPTA (D)
THROUGH LRS. & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
724
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
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."
2.7.
Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra), on merits also
the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
declaring that the acquisition with respect to land in question
is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013 is unsustainable.
3. In view of the above and for the reason stated above the present
appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is accordingly quashed
and set aside. Consequently, the original writ petition filed by respondent
no.1 filed before the High Court stands dismissed.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh and Shashwat Jain, LCRAs)