Delhi Administration... v. Pawan Kumar And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The dispute concerns 7 bigha 1 biswa of land in Village Sayoorpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 25-11-1980 and 20-05-1985, followed by an award on 14-05-1987. The original land-owner challenged the acquisition (W.P. No. 2276/1985), but the Delhi High Court dismissed that petition on 03-03-2005 and a subsequent review on 27-04-2006.

Despite these setbacks, the respondent purchased the property on 25-11-2011 and, relying on Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”), filed a writ petition. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed the petition on 03-02-2015, applying its earlier decision in Gyanender Singh v. Union of India, and declared the acquisition proceedings lapsed. The present appeal challenges that High Court judgment before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a person who purchases land after the issuance of acquisition notifications and after the award can invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to claim that the acquisition has lapsed.

Whether depositing compensation in court without first offering it directly to land-owners satisfies the “payment” requirement under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The respondent, being a post-notification purchaser, lacks the locus to seek a declaration of lapse under Section 24(2).

Possession could not be taken earlier because interim orders in other writ petitions concerning the same acquisition were in force.

Compensation was effectively tendered on 30-12-2013, when cheques were filed before the High Court (during winter recess) and treated as deposited with the Additional District Judge as of that date.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129	Section 24(2) lapses only when both conditions—non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession for five years—are satisfied.	Used to reject the High Court’s view that mere non-offer of compensation leads to lapse; clarified that deposit/tender suffices.
DDA v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. (2022) 8 SCC 771; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 565	Subsequent purchasers after acquisition notifications have no right to claim lapsing under the 2013 Act.	Formed the primary basis for holding that the respondent (a post-award purchaser) could not maintain the writ petition.
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183	Clarified that compensation must be “tendered” to land-owners; mere court deposit is not enough.	High Court had relied on this case; Supreme Court distinguished its applicability in light of Indore Development Authority.
Gyanender Singh v. Union of India 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1694	Delhi High Court precedent that deposit in court without prior tender does not satisfy Section 24(2).	The Supreme Court overturned the reliance on this case, noting it conflicted with subsequent Supreme Court authority.
Balkishan Kapani v. Union of India 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1578	Earlier Delhi High Court dismissal of challenges to the same acquisition.	Used to trace procedural history; no substantive impact on Supreme Court’s ratio.
Chatro Devi v. Union of India 2005 SCC OnLine Del 279	Companion judgment leading to dismissal of original writ petitions against acquisition.	Cited for historical context of earlier litigation.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129

Section 24(2) lapses only when both conditions—non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession for five years—are satisfied.

Used to reject the High Court’s view that mere non-offer of compensation leads to lapse; clarified that deposit/tender suffices.

DDA v. Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. (2022) 8 SCC 771; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 565

Subsequent purchasers after acquisition notifications have no right to claim lapsing under the 2013 Act.

Formed the primary basis for holding that the respondent (a post-award purchaser) could not maintain the writ petition.

Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183

Clarified that compensation must be “tendered” to land-owners; mere court deposit is not enough.

High Court had relied on this case; Supreme Court distinguished its applicability in light of Indore Development Authority.

Gyanender Singh v. Union of India 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1694

Delhi High Court precedent that deposit in court without prior tender does not satisfy Section 24(2).

The Supreme Court overturned the reliance on this case, noting it conflicted with subsequent Supreme Court authority.

Balkishan Kapani v. Union of India 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1578

Earlier Delhi High Court dismissal of challenges to the same acquisition.

Used to trace procedural history; no substantive impact on Supreme Court’s ratio.

Chatro Devi v. Union of India 2005 SCC OnLine Del 279

Companion judgment leading to dismissal of original writ petitions against acquisition.

Cited for historical context of earlier litigation.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court identified two independent grounds for setting aside the High Court’s decision:

Locus of the purchaser: Relying on DDA v. Godfrey Phillips, the Court held that individuals who purchase land after acquisition proceedings (including the award) cannot invoke Section 24(2) to claim lapsing. The respondent’s purchase on 25-11-2011 was well after the award (1987) and, therefore, conferred no such right.

Payment of compensation: Citing the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority, the Court clarified that Section 24(2) triggers lapse only when both possession is not taken and compensation is neither paid nor tendered for five years or more. Depositing cheques with the High Court on 30-12-2013—treated by judicial order as a tender to the Additional District Judge—constituted sufficient compliance. Consequently, the statutory pre-conditions for deemed lapse were not met.

Because either of these findings defeated the respondent’s claim, the Supreme Court concluded that the Delhi High Court’s reliance on Gyanender Singh and Pune Municipal Corporation was misplaced.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed; High Court judgment dated 03-02-2015 set aside; the respondent’s writ petition is dismissed.

Immediate Effect: The land acquisition stands revived and continues to bind the parties; no compensation-related lapse occurs. Broader Implication: The decision reinforces the Constitution Bench view in Indore Development Authority and underscores that post-notification purchasers cannot rely on Section 24(2) to nullify acquisitions, thereby limiting the scope for transactional challenges to concluded land acquisitions.

Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land And Building Department And Others v. Pawan Kumar And Others

3. 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7342, Pawan Kumar Petitioner v. Union Of India & Ors. S (reversed) 471b-c 4. (2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274, Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki 472a 5. 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1694, Gyanender Singh v. Union of India 471b-c, 471e-f 6. CM (M) No. 1407 of 2013, order dated 30-12-2013 (Del), Union of India v. Addl. District Judge (South), Delhi 472e, 472e-f 7. 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1578, Balkishan Kapani v. Union of India 471d 8. 2005 SCC OnLine Del 279, Chatro Devi v. Union Of India & Ors. 471d

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Hemant Gupta, J.— The challenge in the present appeal is to a judgment and order dated 3-2-2015 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7342 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed in view of the earlier judgment of the Delhi High Court in Gyanender Singh v. Union of India 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1694.

2. The respondent purchased the land measuring 7 bigha 1 biswa situated in Village Sayoorpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi on 25-11-2011. The original landowner had filed Writ Petition No. 2276 of 1985 challenging the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”) dated 25-11-1980 and 20-5-1985 respectively. The Land Acquisition Collector had announced the award on 14-5-1987. The said writ petition filed by the original landowner was dismissed on 3-3-2005 2005 SCC OnLine Del 1578 in view of the order passed on the same date in Chatro Devi v. Union Of India & Ors. 2005 SCC OnLine Del 279. Subsequently, a review application was filed by the original landowner inter alia on the ground that the objections filed under Section 5-A were not considered. It was found by the High Court that the original landowner has not given any date of filing of the objection, nor the details as to when and before whom the objections were filed. The objections were not attached with the writ petition either. Consequently, the review application was dismissed on 27-4-2006. It was thereafter, the purchaser has purchased the property on 25-11-2011.

3. The Division Bench in Gyanender Singh 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1694 noticed the payment deposited by the appellant and held as under: (SCC OnLine Del para 5)

“5. … It is absolutely clear from the above extracts that unless and until the compensation is tendered to the persons interested, mere depositing of the compensation in the court would not be sufficient. To be clear, compensation cannot be regarded as having been paid merely on the deposit of the same in court unless and until it has first been offered to the person interested and he has refused to accept the same. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the compensation amount was tendered in this Court without first being offered to the persons interested (petitioners). Therefore, in view of the clear dictum of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corpn. (2014) 3 SCC 183, such deposit of compensation in court cannot be regarded as a payment of compensation as contemplated under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.”

4. The High Court declared the acquisition proceedings as lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the 2013 Act”).

5. Such provision has been interpreted in Indore Development Authority (Lapse-5 J.) v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129 wherein it has been held that twin conditions of non-payment of compensation and/or not taking possession would lead to the deemed lapse of proceedings. Therefore, if any of the twin conditions is not satisfied, the proceedings cannot be declared to be lapsed.

6. The stand of the appellant was that even after the dismissal of the writ petition filed by the original landowner, interim orders in respect of the same acquisition in other writ petitions were in operation, therefore, the appellant could not have taken possession of the land.

7. It was also pointed out that the compensation was deposited by filing an application before the High Court on 30-12-2013 since the deposit had not been accepted by the Additional District Judge, South on account of the court being closed for winter vacations. Thus, an application under Article 227 of the Constitution — CM (M) No. 1407 of 2013 was filed before the High Court. The appellant had thus deposited cheques before the High Court for the amounts payable to original landowner, namely, Balkishan s/o Ram Ratan Kapayi such as a sum of Rs 14,61,188.25 in respect of land measuring 53 bigha and 9 biswa, Rs 4,21,878.93 for land measuring 13 bigha and 6 biswa and Rs 47,798.97 for land measuring 1 bigha and 12 biswa. The High Court had passed an order Delhi CM (M) No. 1407 of 2013 that the same shall be treated as tendered to the Court of Additional District Judge on 30-12-2013. The High Court passed the following order on 30-12-2013 Delhi CM (M) No. 1407 of 2013:

“2. As vaguely pleaded in para 10 and as orally explained, the urgency to file these petitions is that if compensation assessed is not paid or deposited the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapse.

3. It is pleaded in para 4 that the court concerned is presently closed during winter vacations and shall reopen on 2-1-2014.

4. Enclosed with the petitions as Annexure 2 are cheques drawn in the name of ‘ADJ, Delhi’.

5. A meaningful reading of the petition would reveal that the intendment is to tender the amounts on or before 31-12-2013.

6. The petitions stand disposed of recording that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the land holders the cheques tendered in each petition (being Annexure P-2) would be treated as a tender to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge Delhi as of today i.e. 30-12-2013.

7. The Registry is directed to remove the cheques annexed as Annexure 2 and keep them in safe custody till reopening of the court. On the reopening the cheques shall be sent to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi concerned.…”

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the order of the High Court cannot be sustained in law for two reasons:

8.1. Firstly, the respondent is a purchaser after the publication of notice under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and in fact after the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in a separate judgment delivered today in DDA v. Godfrey Phillips (2022) 8 SCC 771, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 565, subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act.

8.2. Secondly, the finding that compensation was not offered to the landowners and therefore the deposit in the Court cannot be regarded as payment of compensation is again not tenable in view of the judgment in Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129 wherein this Court held as under:( & 393-94, paras 202, 205, 207-208 & 366)

“202

. Section 24(2) deals with the expression where compensation has not been paid. It would mean that it has not been tendered for payment under Section 31(1). …

***

205. The word “paid” in Section 31(1) to the landowner cannot include in its ambit the expression “deposited” in court. Deposit cannot be said to be payment made to landowners. Deposit is on being prevented from payment. However, in case there is a tender of the amount that is to mean amount is made available to the landowner that would be a discharge of the obligation to make the payment and in that event such a person cannot be penalised for the default in making the payment. In default to deposit in court, the liability is to make the payment of interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act. …

***

207. In our considered opinion, there is a breach of obligation to deposit even if it is taken that amount to be deposited in the Reference Court in exigencies being prevented from payment as provided in Section 31(2). The default will not have the effect of reopening the concluded proceedings. The legal position and consequence which prevailed from 1893 till 2013 on failure to deposit was only the liability for interest and all those transactions were never sought to be invalidated by the provisions contained in Section 24. It is only in the case where in a pending proceeding for a period of five years or more, the steps have not been taken for taking possession and for payment of compensation, then there is a lapse under Section 24(2). In case amount has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings, higher compensation has to follow. Both lapse and higher compensation are qualified with the condition of period of 5 years or more.

208. It was submitted that mere tender of amount is not payment. The amount has to be actually paid. In our opinion, when amount has been tendered, the obligation has been fulfilled by the Collector. Landowners cannot be forced to receive it. In case a person has not accepted the amount wants to take the advantage of non-payment, though the amount has remained (sic unpaid) due to his own act. It is not open to him to contend that the amount has not been paid to him, as such, there should be lapse of the proceedings. Even in a case when offer for payment has been made but not deposited, liability to pay amount along with interest subsist and if not deposited for majority of holding, for that adequate provisions have been given in the proviso also to Section 24(2). The scheme of the 2013 Act in Sections 77 and 80 is also the same as that provided in Sections 31 and 34 of the 1894 Act.

***

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.”

(emphasis in original)

9. In view of the above, and for the reasons recorded in a separate judgment delivered today in Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd. (2022) 8 SCC 771, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 565, the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable and therefore, the same is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed.

10. The appeal is allowed.

Civil Appeal No. 3646 of 2022†

Delhi Administration... v. Pawan Kumar And Others