# GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ORS v. KRISHAN KUMAR & ORS

- **Citation:** [2023] 2 S.C.R. 416
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-02-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 946 of 2023
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Karol
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/government-of-nct-delhi-ors-v-krishan-kumar-ors-36831
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

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
Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors. reported as allowed the writ petition and declared that the
acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed by
virtue of 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 -
Further, no finding was given by High Court w.r.t the case on behalf
of the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) that the possession of the
disputed lands in question was taken and handed over to the
beneficiary department-DDA immediately - Even the original writ
petitioners admitted that they were not in possession, otherwise they
would not have asked for return of the possession - The possession
proceedings produced on record by LAC were as per the law laid
down in the Indore Development Authority case - Applying the law
laid down therein to the facts of the case on hand, there shall not be
any deemed lapsed as held by the High Court - Impugned judgment
setaside - Land Acquisition Act,1894.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 -
followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
1 SCR 783 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 3
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
417

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
 [2023] 2 S.C.R. 416
416
GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
v.
KRISHAN KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 946 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 17, 2023
[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
Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and
Ors. reported as allowed the writ petition and declared that the
acquisition w.r.t the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed by
virtue of 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 -
Further, no finding was given by High Court w.r.t the case on behalf
of the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) that the possession of the
disputed lands in question was taken and handed over to the
beneficiary department-DDA immediately - Even the original writ
petitioners admitted that they were not in possession, otherwise they
would not have asked for return of the possession - The possession
proceedings produced on record by LAC were as per the law laid
down in the Indore Development Authority case - Applying the law
laid down therein to the facts of the case on hand, there shall not be
any deemed lapsed as held by the High Court - Impugned judgment
setaside - Land Acquisition Act,1894.
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal
and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 -
followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014]
1 SCR 783 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783
referred to
Para 3
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
417
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.946 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2016 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.1178 of 2015.
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
Gurukrishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, N. P.
Sahni, Ms. Misha Rohatgi Mohta, Bharat Monga, Rajender Pd. Saxena,
Ashwani Kumar, Anshay Dhatwalia, 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 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated
14.03.2016 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1178 of 2015 by which the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition and has declared that the
acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed
by virtue of 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 Government of NCT
of Delhi and Ors. have preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court and even from the counter affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition
Collector (LAC) before the High Court, it appears that it was the specific
case on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector - GNCTD that the
lands in question of Village Molarband were acquired vide Notification
under Section 4 dated 04.04.1964, award was declared by the LAC on
19.10.1981 and the possession of the land falling in subject Khasra Nos.
154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) was taken on 10.04.1997 after preparing
the possession proceeding on the spot and the same was handed over to
the beneficiary department, i.e., DDA immediately. In paragraph 4 of
the counter affidavit, it was stated as under:-
"4. That it is submitted that the lands of village Molarband were
notified vide Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act dated 4.4.1964 which was followed by Notification under
section 6 of the said Act vide Notification dated 7.12.1966. That
the then Land Acquisition Collector passed an Award bearing No.
1934-D dated 19.10.81 and the possession of the land falling in
GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI v. KRISHAN KUMAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
subject khasra number 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) was taken
on 10.04.1997 after preparing Possession Proceeding on the spot,
the same was handed over to the beneficiary department, i.e.,
DDA immediately. The compensation of the land under reference
however could not be paid to the recorded owners and is lying
deposited in RD on 30.1.82. It is submitted that the petitioners are
also admitting that the government has taken the actual vacant
physical possession of the subject land as there is no averment in
the writ petition regarding having possession of the petitioners
and rather the petitioner has averred that the Government is liable
to return the said land to the petitioner on page 19. The petitioners
have raised grievance of non-payment of compensation only."
3. Despite the above and relying upon the decision of this Court in
the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground
that the compensation has not been paid, the High Court has allowed the
writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the
lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Act, 2013. No finding is given by the High Court with respect to the
case on behalf of the LAC that the possession of the disputed lands in
question was taken over on 10.04.1997 and was handed over to the
beneficiary department, i.e., DDA immediately. Even from the averment
in para (I) in the writ petition, it was the case on behalf of the original
writ petitioners that the possession of the land comprising of Khasra
Nos. 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12) is liable to be returned to the
petitioners as the entire land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have
lapsed. Meaning thereby, the original writ petitioners admitted that they
were not in possession, otherwise they would not have asked for return
of the possession. Be that it may, the LAC had produced on record the
possession proceedings, which had sufficient compliance as per the law
laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
4. As observed hereinabove, in the present case, while allowing
the writ petition, the High Court has mainly relied upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
(supra), which decision has been overruled by the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra). In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this Court
has observed and held as under:-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
419
"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.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI v. KRISHAN KUMAR
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
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).
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
421
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."
5. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that
the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have
lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is unsustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed
and set aside. There shall not be any deemed lapsed as observed and
held by the High Court.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)
GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI v. KRISHAN KUMAR
[M. R. SHAH, J.]