Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.5054  OF 2008   

M/S. COMPETENT AUTOMOBILES CO. LTD.        .….. APPELLANT

Vs.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                          .…..RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOs.5100,5283,5105-5124,5101-5104,5053,5050,5052 all of  2008, 3279,3280, all of 2012, ,5127-5129,5125,,5051 all of 2008 and 3278 of  2012  

O  R  D  E   R

VIKRAMAJIT SEN,  J.

1 All  of  these  Appeals  were  admitted  before  the  commencement  of  the  

Right  to  Fair  Compensation  and  Transparency  in  Land  Acquisition  

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,  2013. After commencement thereof, the  

Appellants changed the tack of their challenge – originally framed under the

Page 2

2

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - and impugned the acquisition proceedings in toto,  

by evoking the deemed lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013  

Act.  Any determination under this provision 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 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 From  the  record,  these  Appeals  do  not  unambiguously  answer  these  

indispensable queries, which inarguably must precede any declaration of lapse  

of  acquisition  under  Section  24(2).    Each  of  these  Appeals  must  factually

Page 3

3

satisfy this Court on the ingredients of Section 24(2), before this Court may pass  

a declaration in recognition of the statutory lapse of acquisition.    

4 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.   

5 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  

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

Page 4

4

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.  

5 In all  these Appeals,  the submission of  the land owners is  that  either  

possession is still  with them, or compensation has not been tendered by the  

State.  Consequently, the land owners propose to initiate proceedings founded  

on Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land  

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to  

as 'the 2013 Act").    

6 Having heard all  the learned counsel,  we are  persuaded to dispose of  

these proceedings, without entering on the merits, by granting liberty to the land  

owners before us to pray for the revival of the Appeals in the event that Orders  

under Section 24 of the 2013 Act are adverse to their interest. We, therefore,

Page 5

5

permit  the  land  owners  to  initiate  appropriate  proceedings  in  the  proper  

forum/court, seeking the benefit of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, within eight  

weeks from today.   We clarify that,  in the event that  any land owners have  

already approached the High Court concerned, their plea under Section 24 of  

the 2013 Act shall be decided on merits.  

7 It is in these circumstances that all these Appeals are disposed of with  

liberty to the parties to revive these Appeals in the event that the Orders under  

Section  24  of  the  2013  Act  are  seen  as  adverse  to  their  interest.  Interim  

protection, if already granted, shall continue for a period of 90 days from today.

8  It is further clarified that the parties desirous of reviving the Appeal must  

approach this Court within 90 days of the passing of the High Court's orders.

9 The  Appeals  stand  disposed  of  with  the  aforesaid  observations  and  

directions.

………………………J [VIKRAMAJIT SEN]

………………………J [PRAFULLA C. PANT]

New Delhi; February 26 ,  2015.