Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2592     of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C)No. 33569 of 2014]

GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS          ..      APPELLANT

VERSUS

JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS          .. RESPONDENTS

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2586     of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2125 of 2015]

W I T H  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2587     of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2122 of 2015]

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2588     of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 390 of 2015]

GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..APPELLANTS

VERSUS

SUDHAR SAMITI RAJIV NAGAR EXT (REGD.)  AND ORS. ..RESPONDENTS

WITH

Page 2

2

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2589     of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 384 of 2015]

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2590   of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 393 of 2015]

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2591   of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 383 of 2015]

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2593    of 2015 [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2724 of 2015]

J U D G M E N T

VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1   Any  determination  under  Section  24(2)  of  the  Right  to  Fair  

Compensation  and  Transparency  in  Land  Acquisition  Rehabilitation  and  

Resettlement  Act,  2013,  must  proceed  sequentially.  First,  the  factum  of  an  

Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894, must  be clearly  

established.  The said Award must predate the commencement of the Act, i.e.,  

01.01.2014.,  by at least five years (or more), ie., the Award must have been  

passed on or before 01.01.2009.  This having been established, if possession is  

found to not have been taken, or compensation not paid, then the proceedings  

shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the appropriate Government, if it so

Page 3

3

chooses, may reinitiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the same land, but  

under the 2013 Act’s regime.  

2 Each  and  every  deeming  operation  under  Section  24(2)  requires  

unambiguously and unvaryingly that a factual conclusion be drawn about the  

passing  of  the  Award  under  Section  11,  of  the  1894  Act,  on  or  before  

01.01.2009;  further,  the  absence  of  compensation  having  been  paid  or  the  

absence of possession having been taken by the acquirer, either of these, must  

be a proven point of fact, as a threshold requirement attracting the lapse.

3 This  Court  has  in  a  number  of  decisions  including  Pune  Municipal  

Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki  (2014)  3 SCC 183, Union of  

India vs. Shiv Raj (2014) 6 SCC 564 and Bimla Devi vs. State of  Haryana  

(2014)  6  SCC  583,  clarified the manner in which the new provision is to be  

interpreted viz., that the acquisition lapses.   

4 It has been contended in other Appeals before this Court that the Right to  

Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and  

Settlement Ordinance,  2014, issued on 31st December,  2014, clarifies that  if  

possession of the acquired land has not been taken owing to interim Orders  

passed in this regard the acquisition may be protected and insulated from the  

purpose and intendment of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.   This Court has now

Page 4

4

clarified in Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.  

4283 of 2011 decided on 12.01.2015] that the Ordinance shall have prospective  

operation only.  This Court therein held as under:

“The  right  conferred  to  the  land  holders/owners  of  the  acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the statutory right  and, therefore, the said right cannot be taken away by an Ordinance  by  inserting  proviso  to  the  abovesaid  sub-Section  without  giving  retrospective effect to the same.”

The legal  position has been subsequently reiterated by this  Court  in  Arvind  

Bansal  v.  State  of  Haryana  (Civil  Appeal  Nos.417-418 of  2015  decided  on  

13.01.2015) and Karnail  Kaur v. State of Punjab [Civil  Appeal No. 7424 of  

2013 decided on 22.01.2015].  We are in respectful agreement with all these  

decisions.   In the event that there is no ambiguity that (a) the Award is over five  

years old and (b) that compensation has not been paid or (c) that possession of  

the land has not been taken, the acquisition is liable to be quashed.   In Rajiv  

Chowdhrie HUF v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No.8786 of 2013, decided on  

06.02.2015], noting that the physical possession of the land had not been taken  

by  the  Respondents,  nor  compensation  paid  by  the  Respondents  to  the  

Appellant  in  respect  whereof  the  Award  was  passed  on  6.08.2007,  the  

acquisition proceedings had been declared as having lapsed.   The same position  

was arrived at  in  Rajiv Chowdhrie  HUF v.  Union of  India  in  Civil  Appeal  

No.8785 of 2013 decided on 10.12.2014 by a different Bench of this Court.    

Page 5

5

5 These Appeals assail one Judgment and an Order [passed in light of that  

Judgment] of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which had allowed the  

Writ Petitions before it, and declared that the acquisitions had lapsed for the  

reason that the possession had not been taken and compensation, too, not paid.  

This is sufficient ground for granting the protection envisaged by Section 24(2)  

of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.

6 The Appeals are dismissed in the above terms.

…..…………………………….J. [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]

....................................................J [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

New Delhi, February 27, 2015.