# LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR v. MANISH SETHI AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2023] 2 S.C.R. 392
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-02-17
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 945 of 2023
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, C.T Ravikumar, Sanjay Karol
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/land-building-department-anr-v-manish-sethi-and-ors-36826
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) -
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - High Court relying on the decision of
Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported as declared that the acquisition
proceeding initiated under the 1894 Act 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
considering the stand taken by the appellant before the High Court
that the possession of the disputed land in question was taken, there
shall not be any deemed lapse u/s. 24(2) - Impugned judgment set
aside.
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 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3

## Text

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
392
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
 [2023] 2 S.C.R. 392
392
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR.
v.
MANISH SETHI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 945 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) -
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - High Court relying on the decision of
Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors. reported as declared that the acquisition
proceeding initiated under the 1894 Act 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
considering the stand taken by the appellant before the High Court
that the possession of the disputed land in question was taken, there
shall not be any deemed lapse u/s. 24(2) - Impugned judgment set
aside.
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 2
[2020] 3 SCR 1
followed
Para 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.945 of
2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.05.2015 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP (C) No.6060 of 2014.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
393
Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul
Pandey, Rajiv Ranjan, Ms. Rachita Kadyan, Advs. for the Appellants.
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 in Writ Petition
(C) No. 6060 of 2014 by which the High Court has allowed the said 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 Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013"),
the Land and Building Department and the Land Acquisition Collector
have preferred the present appeal.
2. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it is apparent that the High Court has allowed the said 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 relying
upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.
reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183 and on the ground that the compensation
has not been tendered and/or paid to the landowners. However, it is
required to be noted that before the High Court, it was the specific case
on behalf of the appellant that the possession of the land in question was
taken on 28.03.2007.
3. The decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been overruled by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority
Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. 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
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. v. MANISH
SETHI AND ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
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.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
395
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
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
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. v. MANISH
SETHI AND ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
396
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
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 considering the stand taken by the
appellant before the High Court that the possession of the disputed land
in question was taken on 28.03.2007 and applying the law laid down by
this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable
and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is quashed and
set aside. There shall not be any deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013 as held by the High Court.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)