# GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 17 S.C.R. 802
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-12-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 9229 of 2022
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, S. Ravindra Bhat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/govt-of-nct-of-delhi-v-mohd-maqbool-ors-35677
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Land acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court
challenging the acquisition proceedings and also for a declaration
that the acquisition with respect to the land is deemed to have been
lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 - According to the Land
Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit before
the High Court, the possession of the disputed land in question
along with the other lands were taken over and handed over to
DDA on 04.03.1983 - High Court, on the ground, that the
compensation was not tendered to the land owner, allowed writ
petition and declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in
question is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 -
Hence instant appeal - Held: As per the recent decision of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority v. Manoharlal and others for the purpose of lapse under
s.24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking over
possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are required
to be satisfied and that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there
shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of
the Act, 2013 - According to the possession certificate and the
specific case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition
Collector that the possession of the land in question was taken over
on 04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same
deserves to be quashed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. As per the recent decision of the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
803
v. Manoharlal and others for the purpose of lapse under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions of not taking over
possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are
required to be satisfied. As per the decision in the case of Indore
Development Authority if one of the conditions is not satisfied,
there shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the case of Indore Development
Authority, the Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically
overuled the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. which has been relied upon by the High
Court while passing the impugned judgment and order. [Para
3.1][805-C-E]
2. According to the possession certificate and the specific
case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector
that the possession of the land in question was taken over on
04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside. [Para 4][807-H; 808A]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. 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 3.1

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
[2022] 17 S.C.R. 802
802
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
v.
MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9229 of 2022 )
DECEMBER 15, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Land acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -
Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court
challenging the acquisition proceedings and also for a declaration
that the acquisition with respect to the land is deemed to have been
lapsed by virtue of s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 - According to the Land
Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit before
the High Court, the possession of the disputed land in question
along with the other lands were taken over and handed over to
DDA on 04.03.1983 - High Court, on the ground, that the
compensation was not tendered to the land owner, allowed writ
petition and declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in
question is deemed to have lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013 -
Hence instant appeal - Held: As per the recent decision of the
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority v. Manoharlal and others for the purpose of lapse under
s.24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking over
possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are required
to be satisfied and that if one of the conditions is not satisfied, there
shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under s.24(2) of
the Act, 2013 - According to the possession certificate and the
specific case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition
Collector that the possession of the land in question was taken over
on 04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same
deserves to be quashed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. As per the recent decision of the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
803
v. Manoharlal and others for the purpose of lapse under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions of not taking over
possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are
required to be satisfied. As per the decision in the case of Indore
Development Authority if one of the conditions is not satisfied,
there shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the case of Indore Development
Authority, the Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically
overuled the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. which has been relied upon by the High
Court while passing the impugned judgment and order. [Para
3.1][805-C-E]
2. According to the possession certificate and the specific
case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector
that the possession of the land in question was taken over on
04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside. [Para 4][807-H; 808A]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors.
(2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 - followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. 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 3.1
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9229
of 2022
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 27 of 2015.
Chandra Prakash, C. P. Rajwar, Vivek Singh, Pushkar Anand,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Nishit Agrawal, Ishaan Sharma, Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Advs. for
the Respondents.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New
Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015 by which the High Court has
allowed the said writ petition preferred by the 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
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act 2013'), the Government of NCT of Delhi has preferred the
present appeal.
2. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1894) with respect to the land
in question was issued as far as back on 10.11.1960 followed by the
declaration under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 dated 06.01.1969. The award
was declared on 31.01.1983. According to the Department and the Land
Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit on behalf of
the original respondent nos. 1 & 2 before the High Court the possession
of the disputed land in question along with the other lands were taken
over and handed over to DDA on 04.03.1983. That in the year 2015 the
respondent no.1 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging
the acquisition proceedings including the Notification under Section 4 of
the Act, 1894 and also for a declaration that the acquisition with respect
to the land in question is deemed to have been lapsed by virtue of Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013.
2.1 Though it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant and
the Land Acquisition Collector and so stated in the counter affidavit
before the High Court that the possession of the land was taken on
04.03.1983 and the same was handed over to DDA, without going into
the controversy of the physical possession, by the impugned judgment
and order 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 tendered to the land owner, the High Court
has allowed the 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. Hence, the present appeal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
805
3. As observed hereinabove, it was the specific case on behalf of
the appellant and the Land Acquisition Collector before the High Court
that the possession of the land in question was taken over on 04.03.1983
and the same was handed over to the DDA. It is required to be noted
that the original acquisition is of the year 1960 and the writ petition was
preferred challenging the acquisition in the Notification under Sections 4
& 6 after a period of almost 55 years. By the impugned judgment and
order the High Court has allowed the writ petition relying upon the decision
of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra)
observing that the compensation has not been tendered.
3.1 However, as per the recent 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 for the purpose
of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 twin conditions of not
taking over possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are
required to be satisfied. As per the decision in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) if one of the conditions is not satisfied,
there shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section
24(2) of the Act, 2013. In the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra) the Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically over-ruled
the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation
and Anr. (supra) which has been relied upon by the High Court while
passing the impugned judgment and order.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.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
806
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
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 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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
807
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
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 according to the possession certificate
and the specific case on behalf of the appellant and the Land Acquisition
Collector that the possession of the land in question was taken over on
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. MOHD. MAQBOOL & ORS.
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
808
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
04.03.1983 and handed over to DDA, theimpugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be
quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court allowing the Writ Petition (C) No.27 of 2015 and declaring the
acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question is deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed and
set aside.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Devika Gujral
Appeal allowed.