# GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS v. DHANNU & ANR

- **Citation:** [2023] 2 S.C.R. 397
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-02-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.942 of 2023
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, C. T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Karol
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/govt-of-nct-delhi-ors-v-dhannu-anr-36827
- **Pages:** 5

## 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 filed by the original writ
petitioner-respondent no.1 herein and declared that the acquisition
proceeding w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/
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 - Applying
the law laid down therein and as admittedly the land belongs to
Gram Sabha and the original writ petitioner was not the recorded
owner and/or even the owner, the High Court ought not to have
entertained the writ petition- Impugned judgment set aside.
Indore Development Authority vs. 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 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 2.1

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
397
 [2023] 2 S.C.R. 397
397
 GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS.
v.
DHANNU & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.942 of 2023)
FEBRUARY 17, 2023
[M. R. SHAH, C. T. RAVIKUMAR AND
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 filed by the original writ
petitioner-respondent no.1 herein and declared that the acquisition
proceeding w.r.t the land in question is deemed to have lapsed u/
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 - Applying
the law laid down therein and as admittedly the land belongs to
Gram Sabha and the original writ petitioner was not the recorded
owner and/or even the owner, the High Court ought not to have
entertained the writ petition- Impugned judgment set aside.
Indore Development Authority vs. 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 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 2.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.942 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.3158 of 2015.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
Pandey, Rajiv Ranjan, Advs. for the Appellants.
C. N. Sreekumar, Sr. Adv., Arjun Verma, Ms. Anupama Kumar,
Ishaan Sharma, Nitin Mishra, 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 16.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3158 of 2015 by which the High Court has
allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 herein -
original writ petitioner (now represented through his heirs) 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 Government of
NCT of Delhi has preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court it appears that while allowing the writ petition the High Court has
relied upon and/or followed the earlier decision of this Court in the case
of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 on the ground that
the possession of the subject land could not be taken. It is required to be
noted that before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of
the appellant that the land belongs to Gram Sabha and therefore the
original writ petitioner had no locus to pray for declaration that the
acquisition with respect to subject land is deemed to have lapsed by
virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. However, without deciding the
question of ownership and keeping the same open, the High Court has
entertained the said writ petition preferred by the respondent no.1 -
original writ petitioner. At this stage, it is required to be noted that even
before the High Court the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
original writ petitioner did not dispute that the land belongs to Gram
Sabha. In that view of the matter when the land belongs to Gram Sabha
which was even admitted on behalf of the original writ petitioner, the
High Court ought not to have entertained the said writ petition at the
instance of the original writ petitioner who was not even the recorded
owner. Even the question with respect to the compensation to be paid
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
399
would arise only in favour of recorded owner and/or in favour of a person
who had a title.
2.1 Even otherwise it is required to be noted that the decision of
this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr.
(supra), which has been relied upon by the High Court has been
specifically over-ruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the
case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and
others 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".
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI v. DHANNU
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
400
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
401
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 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."
3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) and as observed hereinabove that
the land belongs to Gram Sabha which was admitted on behalf of the
original writ petitioner and the original writ petitioner was not the recorded
owner and/or even the owner, the High Court ought not to have
entertained the writ petition. The impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI v. DHANNU
[M. R. SHAH, J.]