DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 227, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
(2016] 5 S.C.R. 227 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
SUKHBIR SINGH & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 5811 of2015) 
SEPTEMBER 09, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Right to Fair Co111pensation and Transparency in Land 
Acquisitio11, Rehabilitatio11 and Resettlemem Act, 2013 - s. 24(2) -
Land acquisition pro.ceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed -
Construction of - Held: &ate has no business to expropriate jiwn a 
citizen his property if an award has been made and the necessary 
steps of taking physical possession of !a11d and payment of 
co111pe11sation have not been taken for a period of five years or 
more - Section gets attracted if the acquisition proceeding is not 
co111pleted within five years after pronouncement of the award, either 
because physical possession of the land has not been taken or 
because compensation has not been paid, within the said period of 
five years - Object of the Act, a11d s. 24 in particulm; is that in case 
an award has been made for five years or more, possession ought 
to have been taken within this period, or else it is statutorily 
presumed that the balance between the citizens right to retain his 
own property and the right of the Stale to expropriate it for a public 
purpose gets so disturbed as to make the acquisition proceedings 
lapse - Section 24(2) uses the expression "dee111ed to have lapsed" 
because the Legislature was cognizant of the fact that, in cases 
where compensation has not been paid, and physical possession
handed over to the State, vesting has taken place, after which land 
acquisition proceediags could be said to have ended - On facts, 
DDA was not ready with compensation payable on the day the mvard 
was pronounced, but only handed over such compensation to the 
Land Acquisition Collector five years after the award was 
pronounced - Land Acquisition Collect01; in its turn, did nothing 
whatsoever to offer the said sum or pay it to the original owners -
On the contrmy, the authorities moved an application on the eve of 
the coming into force of 2013 Act, and by depositing the said a111ount 
of compensation paid to it in the year 2002, only in 2013 - Original 
227 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
., 
H
228 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 5 S.C.R. 
land owners' lands were notified for acquisition in 1961, of which 
possession was taken in 2000; after which the compensation offered 
was neither tendered nor paid to the land owners - Thus, the 
acquisition was non est in accordance with the object sought to be 
achieved bys. 24(2) - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 31. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, in so 
far as the making of award and the payment of compensation to 
persons interested, is as follows. On the day fixed, the Collector 
after the inquiry that is contemplated under Section 11, has to 
make an award which must contain the necessary ingredients 
mentioned in Section 11. As soon as the award is made, under 
Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector is to 
give immediate notice of the award to such of the persons 
interested as are not present personally. This provision, when 
read with Section 31 of the Act, makes it clear that the statutory 
scheme is that the Collector is to tender payment of compensation 
awarded by him to the persons who are interested and entitled 
thereto, according to the award, on the date of making the award 
itself. It is therefore, clear that under the statutory scheme, the 
Collector must be armed with the amount of compensation payable 
to persons interested as soon as the award is made. Such persons 
have to be paid the sum mentioned in the
award, it being well 
settled that the award is only an offer which may be accepted or 
rejected by the claimants. If accepted, whether under protest or 
otherwise, it is the duty of the Collector to make payment as 
soon as possible after making the award. It is only in a situation 
where the persons interested refuse to consent to receive monies 
payable, or. there be no person competent to alienate the land, or 
if there be any dispute as to title to receive compensation or its 
apportionment, is the Collector to deposit the amount of 
compensation in the reference court. It is only after these steps 
have been taken that the Collector may take possession of the 
land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government 
free from all encumbrances. [Paral0][240-A-F] 
1.2 Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and 
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and 
Resettlement Act, 2013 begins with a non-obstante clause and
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
OTHERS 
covers situations where either no award has been made under 
the Land Acquisition Act, in which case the more beneficial 
provisions of the 2013 Act relating to determination of 
compensation shall apply, or where an award has been made under 
Section 11, land acquisition proceedings shall continue under the 
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as if the said Act bad not 
been repealed. [Para 12)(242-G-H; 243-A) 
1.3 The picture that emerges on a reading of Section 24(2) 
is that the State has no business to expropriate from a citizen his 
property if an award has been made and the necessary steps to 
complete acquisition have not been taken for a period of five 
years or more. These steps include the taking of physical 
possession of land and payment of compensation. What the 
legislature is in effect telling the executive is that they ought to 
have put their house in order and completed the acquisition 
proceedings within a reasonable time after pronouncement of 
award. Not having done so even after a leeway of five years is 
given, would cross the limits of legislative tolerance, after which 
the whole proceeding would be deemed to have lapsed. It is 
important to notice that the Section gets attracted ifthe acquisition 
proceeding is not completed within five years after 
pronouncement of the award. This may happen either because 
physical possession of the land has not been taken or· because 
compensation has
not been paid, within the said· period of five 
years. A faint submission to the effect that 'or' should be read as 
'and' must be turned down for two reasons. The plain natural 
meaning of the sub-section does not lead to any absurdity to 
replace language advisedly used by the Legislature. Secondly, 
the object of the Act, and Section 24 in particular, is that in case 
an award has been made for five years or more, possession ought 
to have been taken within this period, or else it is statutorily 
presumed that the balance between the citizen's right to retain 
his own property and the right of the State to expropriate it for a 
public purpose gets so disturbed as to make the acquisition 
proceedings lapse. Alternatively, if compensation has not been 
paid within this period, it is also statutorily presumed that the 
said balance gets disturbed so as to free such property from 
acquisition. [Para 14)(243-E-H; 244-A-B] 
229 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
230 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
1.4 The Standing Order lleshes out Section 31 of the Land 
Acquisition Act by insisting that compensation must be paid as 
soon as the award is announced, vide paragraph 71. Sufficient 
notice must be given to enable all payees to assemble at a place 
where they will receive their dues immediately. It is emphasized 
by the said paragraph that much trouble will be avoided if the 
principle that payment of compensation should be made at the 
time of the award is strictly observed. Also, it is important that 
the authorities draw in advance a sum sufficient to cover the 
probable amount of the award and to make payments. (Para 
18U252-G-H; 253-A] 
1.5 On facts, it is clear that neither tender, that is offer to 
the original claimant nor payment has been made in the manner 
provided by Section 31 read with the Standing Order. In the 
instant case, the DDA was not ready with compensation payable 
on the day the award was pronounced, but only handed over such 
compensation to the Land Acquisition Collector five years after 
the award was pronounced, that is, in 2002. The Land Acquisition 
Collector, in its turn, did nothing whatsoever to offer the said 
sum or pay it to the original owners. On the contrary, by moving 
an application on the eve of the coming into force of the 2013 
Act, and by depositing the said amount of compensation paid to it 
in the year 2002 only on 30.12.2013, it is clear that the said
mandatory provision and procedure were not followed by the 
authorities. The present original land owners' lands were notified 
for acquisition on 24.10.1961, of which possession was taken four 
decades later, in 2000; after which the land owners have yet to 
see the colour of the paltry amount of compensation offered which 
has neither been tendered nor paid to them. In the facts disclosed, 
there could not be stronger facts to hold such acquisition 11011 est 
in accordance with the object sought to be achieved by s. 2.t (2) 
of the 2013 Act. [Para 20]-254-A-E] 
1.6 A cursory reading of the paragraphs of the Standing 
Orders would show that it is only pursuant to judicial orders that 
the State wakes up from its slumber. A notice of award under 
Section 12(2) to persons interested can only be issued after money 
is received by the Land Acquisition Collector, and that the said 
Collector shall not take possession of land unless and until
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
OTHERS 
compensation amount is received by him. :Further, actual payment 
to land owners must be made latest within a period of 60 days. It 
is high time that the State realizes that persons whose property 
is expropriated need to be paid immediately so as to rehabilitate 
themselves. Also, it cannot be forgotten that the amount usually 
offered by way of an award of a Land Acquisition Collector under 
the 1894 Act is way below the real market value, which is only 
awarded and paid years later when the reference proceedings 
culminate in judgments of the High Courts and of this Court. 
[Para 22][255-H; 256-A-C) 
1.7 The difference in phraseology between s. llA of the 
1894 Act and s.24(2) of the 2013 Act really clinches the issue in 
favour of the land owners. The expression used in s.24(2), namely, 
"deemed to have lapsed" is of great significance and differs from 
the use of the expression "lapsed" in s.llA. A deeming fiction is 
enacted so that a putative state of affairs mus''i\'e imagined, the 
mind not being allowed to boggle at the logical consequence of 
such putative state of affairs. Even if it is accepted that, post 
vesting, acquisition proceedings cannot be said to lapse, yet effect 
has to be given to the deeming fiction contained in s. 24(2). In 
fact, s.24(2) uses the expression "deemed to have lapsed" 
because the Legislature was cognizant of the fact that, in cases 
where compensation has not been paid, and
physical possession 
handed over to the State, vesting has taken place, after which 
land acquisition proceedings could be said to have ended. [Para 
27][258-E-G] 
1.8 It is not correct that physical possession has not been 
taken. The Panchnama specifically records that possession of the 
land was recovered and handed over to the representatives of 
the office of Land and Buildings. The Panchnama is also signed 
by all the necessary officers. The piece of land admittedly being 
open land is governed by the ratio of Ragltbir Singlt's case. As 
the instant case will fall within sub-paragraph (ii) that if the 
acquired land is vacant, the act of the State authority concerned 
to go to the spot and prepare a panchnama will ordinarily be 
treated as sufficient to constitute taking of possession, thus, the 
t>hysical possession of the land can he said to have been taken 
on the facts of the instant case. [Paras 28 and 29](259-A-B, E-F; 
231 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
260-D] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1.9 Having regard to the law declared in the Pune Municipal 
Corporation case, as followed by the other judgments of this Court, 
the High Court was correct and the impugned judgment calls for 
no interference. [Para 30][260-E] 
2015 
Pune Municipal Corporation v. H.M Solanki 2014 (3) 
SCC 183 : 2014 (1) SCR 783 - relied on. 
Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P (1993) 4 SCC 
369 : 1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 336; Meera Sahni v. Lt. 
Governor of Delhi & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 177 : 2008 
(10) SCR 1012; Nell' Reviera Coop. Housing Society 
v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1996) 1 SCC 731 
: 1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 169; Sunder " Union of India 
(2001) 7 SCC 211 : 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 901; Ba11galore 
Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah (2005) 12 SCC 
508 : 2008 (10) SCR 1012; Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar 
(2015) 10 sec 241 : 2015 (11) SCR 179; Raghbir 
Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2012) 1 
SCC 792 : 2011 (14) SCR 1113 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 336 
referred to 
Para 7 
2008 (10) SCR 1012 
referred to 
Para 7 
1995 (6) Suppl. SCR 169 
referred to 
Para 10 
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 901 
referred to 
Para 10 
2015 (11) SCR 179 
referred to 
Para 10 
2008 (10) SCR 1012 
referred to 
Para26 
2011 (14) SCR 1113 
referred to 
Para 28 
2014 (1) SCR 783 
relied on 
Para30 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5811 of 
WITH 
C. A. No. 8857 of2016. 
From the Judgment and
Order dated 18.11.2014 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 4375 of2014.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
233 
OTHERS 
Amerendra Sharan, Sr, Adv., Ms. Bi nu Tamta, Dhruv Tamta, Ms. 
Rachna Srivastava, Advs. for the Appellant. 
V. Giri, A. K. Sanghi, Sr. Advs., Mahesh Agarwal, Ms. Devika 
Mohan (For E. C. Agrawala), Hemant Malhotra, Sachin Gupta, Ms. 
Sukirti, Pankaj Malhotra, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.F.NARIMAN, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P(C) No. 28304 of 
2015. 
2. These two appeals revisit the question of the correct construction 
A 
B 
of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency c 
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 
(hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act"). We are constrained to 
observe that we are hearing these matters despite the fact that the law 
has been settled in Pone Municipal Corporation v. H.M. Solanki, 
2014 (3) sec 183, which is now stare dee is is in that it has been followed 
in a large number ofjudgments1• 
D 
3. The facts of the present case are as follows. A Notification 
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on 241h 
October, 1961, stating that the public purpose for acquisition was the 
planned development of Delhi. This Notification covered large tracts of 
land in and around Delhi. In this case, we are concerned with 33 bighas 
E 
and 1 biswa ofland in the Vasant Kunj area of New Delhi. This Section 
4 Notification was followed by a Notification under Section 6 dated 41h 
January,
1969, which in turn, was followed by notices issued under Section 
I Bimla Devi & Ors. V. State ofHaryana & Ors. (2014) 6 sec 583 at para 3: Union of 
India (UOI) and Ors. ,._Shi,· Raj and Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 564 at para 22: Sree Bala.ii 
F 
Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu (201513 SCC 353 at para 14: 
State of Haryana v. Vinod Oil and General Mills 2014 ( 15) SCC 4 l 0 at para 21: Sita 
Ram v. State ofHaryana & Anr. (2015) 3 SCC 597 at paras 19. 21: Ram Kishan & Ors 
v. State ofHaryana & Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 347 at paras 8. 9. 12: Vela'l:an Kumar"· Union 
oflndia & Ors. 2015 ( 4) SCC 325 at· paras 15. 16. 17: Karnail Kaur v. State of Punjab 
(2015) 3 SCC 206 at paras 17. 18. 23: Raj iv Choudhrie HUF v. Union of India and Ors. 
G 
2015 (3) SCALE 203 at para I: Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd., .. Union of India and 
Ors. AIR 2015 SC 3186 at para 4: Go\'t. ofNCT of Delhi and Ors,._ Jagjit Singh and 
Ors. AIR 2015 SC 2683 at para 3: Karan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 
2015 ( 7) SCALE l 91 at para 5: Delhi De,·clopment Authority\'. Sukhbir Singh & Ors. 
SLP (CC) No. 5569 of 2015 at page 5: Shashi Gupta and Ors. "· State of Haryana and 
Ors. 2016 (5) SCALE 636 al para 5. 
H
234 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
9 on 26'h April, 1983. An award relating to the aforesaid land was then 
made by the Land Acquisition Collector, New Delhi, only on I 2'h 
December, 1997. Possession of the said land, being an open piece of 
land, was taken by a Panchnama dated 27'h January, 2000. An affidavit 
that has been filed by the Commissioner, Land Management, Delhi 
Development Authority in this Court, pursuant to an order of this Court 
dated 17th April, 2015, discloses that the requisite compensation for taking 
over the said land was deposited by the DOA with the Land Acquisition 
Collector only in the year 2002. The said affidavit goes on to state that 
since the land had been sold to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in the present 
case, there was a dispute as to who would receive compensation and 
that, therefore, compensation could neither be paid nor tendered. 
4. On the eve of the coming into force of the 2013 Act (on I" 
January, 2014 ), an application styled as a Petition under Article 227 of 
the Constitution oflndia was made by the Land Acquisition Collector in 
the High Court of Delhi on 27'h December, 2013, requesting the High 
Court of Delhi to accept cheques towards compensation amounts under 
the award dated ] 2th December, 1997, stating that non-deposit of 
compensation on or before 31" December, 2013 would adversely affect 
the acquisition proceedings inasmuch as the proceedings might lapse in 
view of the fact that the
2013 Act has been notified to take effect from 
I" January, 2014. An order dated 30'" December, 2013 was passed by 
the High Court on this application stating that the petition stands disposed 
of, recording that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the 
land owners, the cheques tendered in each petition would be treated as 
a tender to the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi as on 
today i.e. 30th December, 2013. 
5. The original land holders thereafter presented a Writ Petition, 
being Writ Petition No. 4375of2014 before the High Court of Delhi, on 
26th May, 2014, stating that as possession had not been taken and as 
compensation had neither been tendered nor paid to the petitioner, the 
requisite conditions of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation 
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement 
Act, 2013 would be met, and that, as a result, the acquisition proceedings 
had lapsed. No affidavit in reply was filed to the aforesaid writ petition. 
By the impugned judgment dated ] 8th November, 2014, the High Court 
of Delhi allowed the said petition based on the judgment in Pune 
Municipal Corporation, and other judgments following the same,
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
235 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN. J.] 
stating: 
. A 
"5. Without going into the controversy with regard to physical 
possession, this much is clear that the award \Vas made 
more than five years prior to the commencement of the 
2013 Act and the compensation has also not been paid. 
The necessary ingredients for the application of Section 
8 
24(2) of the 2013 Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court 
and this court in the following decisions, stand satisfied: 
(i) Pune Municipal Coporation and Anr. v. H.M. Solanki, 
2014(2)SCC 183, 
(ii) Union of India & Ors. V. Shiv Raj & Ors., (2014) 6 
sec 564. 
(iii) Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of 
Tamil Nadu & Ors.: Civil Appeal No. 8700/2013. 
(iv) Surender Singh v. Union of India & Others: W.P.(C) 
No. 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this Comt; and 
(v) Gyanender Singh & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors., 
W.P.(C)No. 1393/2014, 10.09.2014. 
6. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration 
c 
D 
that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 
E 
Act in respect of the subject lands are deemed to have 
lapsed. It is so declared." 
6. The present appeals have, therefore, been filed by both the 
Land Acquisition Collector and the ODA. 
7. Shri Amarendra Sharan, Senior Advocate, appearing for the 
DOA and Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Advocate,' appearing for the Land 
Acquisition Collector, have argued before us that Pune Municipal 
Corporation needs to
be revisited on essentially two grounds. The first 
is that at least as far as Delhi is concerned, it is governed by a Standing 
Order of26'h June, 1909 as amended up to date, in which one method of 
making payment under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act is by 
deposit in the treasury. The distinguishing feature of this case is, 
therefore, that unlike in Pune Municipal Corporation, deposit in a 
treasury is a recognized mode of making payment for the purpose of 
Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, and that this being the case, it is 
F 
G 
H
236 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
clear that Pune Municipal Corporation would not, therefore, apply to 
the facts of the present case. A second argument was also made by 
both the learned counsels to the effect that Pone Municipal 
Corporation did not notice that since possession had been taken in the 
facts of the present case, in the year 2000, vesting of the land in the 
State had already taken place and the original owner had been divested 
of his title. This being the case, the acquisition proceedings being over in 
the year 2000, no question of lapse of a proceeding that is already over 
can possibly take place in the year2014 after the enactment of the 2013 
Act. For the aforesaid proposition, the learned counsel relied upon 
Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P., (1993) 4 SCC 369. They 
further argued that, in the present case, a subsequent purchaser had 
come into the picture by a registered sale deed dated 23'd June, 1992. 
This being the case, it is clear that the State was in a dilemma as to who 
should be paid compensation, and it is for this reason that compensation 
was neither tendered nor paid after the award. For this purpose, they 
relied upon Meera Sahni v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 
sec 177. 
8. The submissions of both the learned counsels were rebutted by 
Shri A.K. Sanghi, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the original 
owner and Shri V. Giri, appearing on behalfof the subsequent purchasers. 
Both
the learned counsels emphasized the fact that compensation money 
had neither been tendered or paid in accordance with Section 31 of the 
Land Acquisition Act. They further went on to state that even possession 
had not been taken in accordance with law as no notice had been issued 
to the land owners before taking possession and, that therefore, this was 
a case which was covered by both contingencies mentioned in Section 
24(2) of the 2013 Act. They also argued that it is too late in the day to go 
back on the ratio of Pune Municipal Corporation, which squarely 
applies on the facts of the present case, as it has now been followed in 
a catena of judgments. 
9. Having heard the arguments on both sides, it is necessary to 
first set out the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In these 
appeals; we are directly concerned with Section 11 under which enquiry 
and award are to be made by the Collector, Section 12 which states that 
the Collector is to give immediate notice of his award to persons interested 
who are not present personally when the award is made; Section 16 
which deals with the taking of possession and vesting ofland; and Sections
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.] 
31 and 34 which deal with payment of compensation. Accordingly, the 
said Sections are set out herein below: 
"I 1. Enquiry and award by Collector. - (I) On the day 
so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been 
adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the 
objection (if any) which any person interested has stated 
pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the 
measurements made under section 8, and into the value of 
· the land at the date of the publication of the notification 
under section 4, sub-section (I), and into the respective 
interests of the persons claiming the compensation and shall 
make an award under his hand of-
(i) the true area of the land; 
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed 
for the land; and 
237 
A 
8 
c 
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all 
D 
the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, 
or whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether 
or not they have respectively appeared before him : 
Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under 
this sub-section without the previous approval of the 
E 
appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate 
Government may authorize in this behalf: 
· 
Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate 
Government to direct that the Collector may make such 
award without such approval in such class of
cases as the. 
F 
appropriate Government may specify in this behalf. 
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I), 
ifat any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied 
that all the persons interested in the land who appeared 
before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be 
G 
included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed 
by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, 
without making further enquiry, make an award according 
to the terms of such agreement. 
H
238 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
(3) The determination of compensation for any land under 
sub-section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination 
of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality 
or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of 
this Act. 
B 
( 4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration 
Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-
section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act. 
12. Award·ofCollectorwhen to be final.-(!) Such award 
shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as 
c 
hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence, as 
between the Collector and the persons interested, whether 
they have respectively appeared before the Collector or 
not, of the true area and value of the land, and the 
appointment of the compensation among the persons 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
interested. 
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award 
to such of the persons interested as are not present 
personally or by their representatives when the award is 
made. 
16. Power to take possession. - When the Collector has 
made an award under section 11, he may take possession 
of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the 
Government, free from all encumbrances. 
31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in 
Court. - (I) On making an award under section 11, the 
Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded 
by him to the persons interested
entitled thereto according 
to the award and shall pay it to them unless prevented by 
some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the 
next sub-section. 
(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no 
person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any 
dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to 
the appo1tionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount 
of the compensation in the Cou1t to which a reference under
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
239 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.] 
section 18 would be submfoed: 
A 
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may 
receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency 
of the amount: 
Provided also that no person who has received the amount 
otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any 
application under section 18: 
Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the 
liability of any person, who may receive the whole or ahy 
part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay 
the same to the person lawfully entitled thereto. 
(3) Notwithstanding anything in this section the Collector 
may, with the sanction of the appropriate Government 
instead of awarding a money compensation in respect of 
any land, make any arrangement with a person having a 
limited interest in such land, either by the grant of other 
lands in exchange, the remission of land-revenue on other 
lands held under the same title, or in such other way as 
may be equitable having regard to the interests of the parties 
concerned. 
(4) Nothing in the last foregoing sub-section shall be 
construed to interfere with or limit the power of the Collector 
to enter into any arrangement with any person interested in 
the land and competent to contract in respect thereof. 
34. Payment of interest - When the amount of such 
compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking 
possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the
amount 
awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum 
per annum from the time of so taking possession until it 
shall have been so paid or deposited: 
Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is 
not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the 
date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 
fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the 
date or expiry of the said period of one year on the amount 
of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
240 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
deposited before the date of such expiry." 
I 0. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, in so far as the 
making of award and the payment of compensation to persons interested, 
is as follows. On the day fixed, the Collector after the inquiry that is 
contemplated under Section I I, has to make an award which must contain 
the necessary ingredients mentioned in Section I I. As soon as the award 
is made, under Section I 2(2) of the Act, the Collector is to give immediate 
notice of the award to such of the persons interested as are not present 
personally. This provision, when read with Section 3 I of the Act, makes 
it clear that the statutory scheme is that the Collector is to tender payment 
of compensation awarded by him to the persons who are interested and 
entitled thereto, according to the award, on the date of making the award 
itself. It is therefore, clear that under the statutory scheme, the Collector 
must be armed with the amount of compensation payable to persons 
interested as soon as the award is made. Such persons have to be paid 
the sum mentioned in the award, it being well settled that the award is 
only an offer which may be accepted or rejected by the claimants. If 
accepted, whether under protest or otherwise, it is the duty of the Collector 
to make payment as soon as possible after making the award. It is only 
in a situation where the persons interested refuse consent to receive
monies payable, or there be no person competent to alienate the land, or 
if there be any dispute as to title to receive compensation or its 
apportionment, is the Collector to deposit the amount of compensation in 
the reference court. It is only after these steps have been taken that the 
Collector may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest 
absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. The Act 
further makes it clear, on a reading of Section 34, that where such 
compensation is neither paid or deposited on or before taking possession 
of the land, interest is payable at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for 
one year and 15 per cent per annum thereafter. This is because a person 
becomes divested of both possession and title to his property without 
compensation having been paid or deposited, as the case may be. This 
statutory scheme has been-adverted to in some of the decisions of this 
Court. In New Reviera Coop. Housing Society v. Special Land 
Acquisition Officer, (1996) I SCC 73 I at para 3, this Court held: 
" ... Once the award has been made and compensation has 
been deposited or paid under Section 31 of the Act, the Land 
Acquisition Officer is entitled to take possession and the
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
241 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN; J.] 
possession thereby taken stands vested in the State under 
A 
Section 16 of the Act free from all encumbrances ... " 
In Sunder v. Union oflndia, (2001) 7 SCC 211 at para 24, this 
Court held: 
" ... What the legislature intended was to make the 
aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the 
hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at 
any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his 
land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should 
enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he 
receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into 
different components for the purpose of payment of interest 
under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the 
legislature when that section was framed or enacted." 
In Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, 
(2005) 12 SCC 508 at para 4 7, this Court held: 
" ... Section 31 contemplates that on making of an award 
under Section 11 the Collector shall tender amount of 
compensation awarded by him to the µerson interested and 
entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay to 
them unless prevented by any one or more of the 
contingencies mentioned in the subsequent clauses. None 
of those contingencies arose in the present case. Thus, once 
the amount was tendered and paid the acquisition process 
was complete. After making the award under Section 11 
the Collector can take possession of
the land under Section 
16 which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government 
free from all encumbrances. In the instant case, after making 
the payment in terms of the award, possession was taken. 
The acquisition process stood completed .... " 
11. Given the fact that the State has been prompt in acquiring land 
for public purposes, but tardy in tendering or paying compensation, the 
2013 Act came in as a beneficial legislation to the aid, in particular, of 
poor farmers whose lands had been acquired under the Land Acquisition 
Act but compensation had not been tendered or paid as required under 
the said Act. With this object in mind, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
242 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
enacted. Section 24 reads as follows: 
"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 
shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.-( I) · 
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case 
of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land 
B 
AcquisitionAct, 1894,-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land 
Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this 
Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; 
or 
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, 
then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions 
of the said Land Acquisition Act, as ifthe said Act has not 
been repealed. 
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (I), 
in case ofland acquisition proceedings initiated under the 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), where an award 
under the said section 11 has been made five years or more 
prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical 
possession of the land has not been taken or the 
compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall 
be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, 
if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land 
acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this 
Act: 
Provided that where an award has been made and 
compensation in respect of a majority ofland holdings has 
not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then,
all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition 
under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be 
entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions 
of this Act." 
12. Section 24(1) begins with a 11011-obsta11te clause and covers 
situations where either no award has been made under the Land 
Acquisition Act, in which case the more beneficial provisions of the 
2013 Act relating to determination of compensation shall apply, or where
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.] 
an award has been made under Section 11, land acquisition proceedings 
shall continue under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as ifthe 
said Act had not been repealed. 
13. To Section 24( I )(b) an important exception is carved out by 
Section 24(2). The necessary ingredients of Section 24(2) are as follows: 
(a) Section 24(2) begins with a 11011-obstante clause keeping sub-
section (I) out of harm's way; 
(b) For it to apply, land acquisition proceedings should have been 
initiated under the Land Acquisition Act; 
(c) Also, an award under Section 11 should have been made 5 
years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act; 
( d) Physical possession of the land, ifnot taken, or compensation, 
if not paid, are fatal to the land acquisition proceeding that had been 
initiated underthe Land Acquisition Act; · 
( e) The fatality is pronounced by stating that the said proceedings 
shall be deemed to have lapsed, and the appropriate Government, if it so 
chooses, shall, in this game of snakes and ladders, start all over again. 
14. The picture that therefore emerges on a reading of Section 
24(2) is that the State has no business to expropriate from a citizen his 
property if an award has been made and the necessary steps to complete 
acquisition have not been taken for a period of five years or more. These 
steps include the taking of physical possession of land and payment of 
compensation.
What the legislature is in effect telling the executive is 
that they ought to have put their house in order and completed the 
acquisition proceedings within a reasonable time after pronouncement 
of award. Not having done so even after a leeway of five years is 
given, would cross the limits of legislative tolerance, after which the 
whole proceeding would be deemed to have lapsed. It is important to 
notice that the Section gets attracted ifthe acquisition proceeding is not 
completed within five years after pronouncement of the award. This 
may happen either because physical possession of the land has not been 
taken or because compensation has not been paid, within the said period 
of five years. A faint submission to the effect that 'or' should be read as 
'and' must be turned down for two reasons. The plain natural meaning 
of the sub-section does not lead to any absurdity for us to replace language 
advisedly used by the Legislature. Secondly, the object of the Act, and 
243 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
244 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
Section 24 in particular, is that in case an award has been made for five 
years or more, possession ought to have been taken within this period, or 
else it is statutorily presumed that the balance between the citizen's right 
to retain his own property and the right of the State to expropriate it for 
a public purpose gets so disturbed as to make the acquisition proceedings 
lapse. Alternatively, if compensation has not been paid within this 
period, it is also statutorily presumed that the aforesaid balance gets 
disturbed so as to free such property from acquisition. 
15. The stage is now setto consider the arguments of the appellants 
before us. Before doing so, it is important to first set out what exactly 
has been held in the landmark judgment of three Hon'ble Judges (in 
which one of us Kurian, J. is a member) in the Pune Municipal 
Corporation case. The Comt was concerned with what is the true 
meaning of the expression "compensation has not been paid" occurring 
in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It is important first to notice the argument 
that was made on behalf of the Pune Municipal Corporation and the 
Land Acquisition Collector which is, in paragraph 7, extracted herein 
below: 
"On the other hand, on behalf of the Corporation and so 
also for the Collector, it is argued that the award was made 
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 31-1-2008 
strictly in terms of the 1894 Act and on
the very day the 
landowners were informed regarding the quantum of 
compensation for their respective lands. Notices were also 
issued to the landowners to reach the Office of the Special 
Land Acquisition Officer and receive the amount of 
compensation and since they neither received the 
compensation nor any request came from them to make 
reference to the District Court under Section 18, the 
compensation amounting to Rs 27 croxes was deposited in 
the Government treasu1y. It is, thus, submitted that there 
was no default on the part of the Special Land Acquisition 
Officer or the Government and, hence, the acquisition 
proceedings have not lapsed. Moreover, reliance is also 
placed on Section 114 of the 2013 Act and it is argued that 
the concluded land acquisition proceedings are not at all 
affected by Section 24(2) and the only right that survives to 
the landowners is to receive compensation." [para 7]
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.] 
16. After setting out Section 24(2), the Court went on to hold: 
"Section 24(2) also begins with non obstante clause. This 
provision has overriding effect over Section 24(1 ). Section 
24(2) enacts that in relation to the land acquisition 
proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, where an award 
has been made five years or more prior to the 
commencement of the 2013 Act and either of the two 
contingencies is satisfied viz. (i) physical possession of the 
land has not been taken, or (ii) the compensation has not 
been paid; such acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to 
have lapsed. On the lapse of such acquisition proceedings, 
ifthe appropriate Government still chooses to acquire the 
land which was the subject-matterofacquisition under the 
1894 Actthen it has to initiate the proceedings afresh under 
the 2013 Act. The proviso appended to Section 24(2) deals 
with a situation where in respect of the acquisition initiated 
under the 1894 Act an award has been made and 
compensation in respect of a majority oflandholdings has 
not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries then 
all the beneficiaries specified in the Section 4 notification 
become entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act. 
Section 31 ( 1) of the 1894 Act enjoins upon the Collector, 
on making an award under Section 11, to tender payment 
of compensation to persons interested entitled thereto 
according to award. It
further mandates the Collector to 
make payment of compensation to them unless prevented 
by one of the contingencies contemplated in sub-section 
(2). The contingencies contemplated in Section 31 (2) are: 
(i) the persons interested entitled to compensation do not 
consent to receive it, (ii) there is no person competent to 
alienate the land, and (iii) there is dispute as to the title to 
receive compensation or as to the apportionment of it. If 
due to ariy of the contingencies contemplated in Section 
31 (2), the Collector is prevented from making payment of 
compensation to the persons interested who are entitled to 
compensation, then the Collector is required to deposit the 
compensation in the court to which reference under Section 
18 may be made. 
245 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
246 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
Simply put, Section 3 I of the 1894 Act makes provision for 
payment of compensation or deposit of the same in the court. 
This provision requires that the Collector should tender 
payment of compensation as awarded by him to the persons 
interested who are entitled to compensation. If due to 
happening of any contingency as contemplated in Section 
31 (2), the compensation has not been paid, the Collector 
should deposit the amount of compensation in the court to 
which reference can be made under Section 18. 
The mandatory nature of the provision in Section 31 (2) with 
regard to deposit of the compensation in the coui1 is further 
fortified by the provisions contained in Sections 32, 33 and 
34. As a matter of fact, Section 33 gives power to the court, 
on an application by a person interested or claiming an 
interest in such money, to pass an order to invest the amount 
so deposited in such Government or other approved 
securities and may direct the interest or other proceeds of 
any such investment to be accumulated and paid in such 
manner as it may consider proper so that the parties 
interested therein may have the benefit therefrom as they 
might have had from the land in respect whereof such money 
shall have been deposited or as near thereto as may be. 
While enacting Section 24(2), Parliament definitely had in 
its view Section 31 of the 1894 Act. From that one thing is 
clear that it did not
intend to equate the word "paid" to 
"offered" or "tendered". But at the same time, we do not 
think that by use of the word "paid", Parliament intended 
receipt of compensation by the landowners/persons 
interested. In our view, it is not appropriate to give a literal 
construction to the expression "paid" used in this sub-section 
[sub-section (2) ofSection24]. lfa literal construction were 
to be given, then it would amount to ignoring the procedure, 
mode and manner of deposit provided in Section 31 (2) of 
the 1894 Act in the event of happening of any of the 
contingencies contemplated therein which may prevent the 
Collector from making actual payment of compensation. 
We are of the view, therefore, that for the purposes of 
Section 24(2),,the compensation shall be regarded as "paid"
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.] 
ifthe compensation has been offered to the person interested 
and such compensation has been deposited in the court 
where reference under Section 18 can be made on 
happening of any of the contingencies contemplated under 
Section 31 (2) of the 1894 Act. In other words, the 
compensation may be said to have been "paid" within the 
·meaning of Section 24(2) when the Collector (or for that 
matter Land Acquisition Officer) has discharged his 
obligation and deposited the amount of compensation in court 
and made that amount available to the interested person to 
be dealt with as provided in Sections 32 and 33. 
The 1894 Act being an expropriatory legislation has to be 
strictly followed. The procedure, mode and manner for 
payment of compensation are prescribed in Part V (Sections 
31-34) of the 1894 Act.The Collector, with regard to the 
payment of compensation, can only act in the manner so 
provided. It is settled proposition oflaw (classic statement 
of Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad [Nazir Ahmad v. King 
Emperor, (1935-36) 63 IA 372 : (1936) 44 LW 583 : AIR 
1936 PC 253 (2)) ) that where a power is given to do a 
certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that 
way or not at all. Other methods of performance are 
necessarily forbidden. 
Now, this is admitted position that award was made on 31-
1-2008. Notices were issued to the landowners to receive 
the compensation and since they did
not receive the 
compensation, the amount (Rs 27 crores) was deposited in 
the Government treasury. Can it be said that deposit of the 
amount of compensation in the Government treasury is 
equivalent to the amount of compensation paid to the 
landowners/persons interested? We do not think so. In a 
comparatively recent decision, this Court in Agnelo 
Santimano Fernandes [Iva Agnelo Santimano 
Fernandes v. State of Goa, (2011) 11 SCC 506: (2011) 4 
SCC (Civ) 268], relying upon the earlier decision in Prem 
Nath Kapur [Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers 
Corpn. of India Ltd., ( 1996) 2 SCC 71] , has held that the 
deposit of the amount of the compe11sation in the State's 
247 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
248 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
revenue account is of no avail and the liability of the State 
to pay interest subsists till the amount has not been deposited 
in court. 
From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining to the 
subject land has been made by the Special Land Acquisition 
Officer more than five years prior to the commencement 
of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position that 
compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the 
landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court. 
The deposit of compensation amount in the Government 
treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent 
to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested. 
We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the subject 
land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed 
under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act." [paras 11, 14-20] 
17. Both the learned counsels on behalf of the appellants first 
sought to distinguish the aforesaid judgment with reference to Standing 
Order No. 28 of 1909 which applies to Delhi. In so far as the said 
Standing Order is relevant to this case, its provisions are set out 
herein below: 
"71. Payment of compensation when made - As soon 
as the award has been announced the acquiring officer will 
proceed to pay the compensation awarded to those persons 
who are present and who accept the award. Sufficient notic~ 
should be given to enable all payees to assemble at the 
place where they
will receive their dues but no time should 
be wasted on useless endeavours to secure the attendance 
of absentees. A note shall be made of the names of those 
persons who refused to accept the amount awarded or who 
accept it under protest. Much trouble will be avoided if the 
principle that payment of compensation should be made at 
the time of award, is strictly observed. Most of the persons 
interested will then be present and immediate payment will 
save them the necessity of making frequent journeys to the 
tehsil. It will usually be found of advantage to draw in 
advance a sum sufficient to cover the probable amount of 
the award and to make payments against this especially 
when the award is announced at a place distant from the
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
249 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.] 
headquarters. 
A 
73. Statement to be forwarded to the Accountant 
General - When an award is made under Section 11 of 
the Act the acquiring officer shall have a statement prepared 
in the following Form marked AA showing the amounts 
payable to each person under the award and shall, on the 
day the award is made, forward a copy of this statement 
signed by him to the accountant general or other audit office1~ 
with whom he is in account and the Deputy Commissioner 
concerned simultaneously with a certificate that the land 
has been taken possession of and mutated in favour of 
Government fiving the number and date of the attested 
mutation. On the basis of this certificate, the Deputy 
Commissioner may forward a proposal to the Financial 
Commissioner for sanctioning reduction of land revenue 
under Paragraph 79 infra. Before signing the copy the 
Officer should carefully satisfy himself that it correctly 
shows the amounts due under the award and should himself 
enter the total of column 6 of the statement in words both 
in the original and copy. Subsidiary statement in Form AA 
below, giving particulars regarding the acceptance by the 
persons concerned of the amounts entered in column 6 of 
the Award statement should also be furnished to the auditing 
officer as soon as possible. If the subsidiary statement is 
not complete on the day that the award is made, the 
necessary entries in column 7
of the statement in Form A 
will be made in the auditing office on receipt of the statement 
in Form AA. 
FORM AA 
Particulars regarding the acceptance by the persons 
concerned of amounts entered in award statement no. 
dated 
200 
----
Name of work for which land has been acquired 
No. and date of declaration in 
----
----
Gazette viz No. 
dated 
1968 ____ page ___ _ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
250 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 5 S.C.R. 
I. 
2. 
3. 
PARTICULARS OF AMOUNT ENTERED IN 
COLUMN 6 OF THE AWARD STATEMENT 
Serial No. Name 
of (a) 
(b) 
(c) 
Amount 
in the 
person to 
~ndisbursed 
statement 
whom 
Amount 
Amount 
Amount 
owing to 
award 
payment 
accepted 
accepted 
deposited 
~on-
under 
is 
made 
witlxrnt 
under 
in Court 
attendan:e 
Section 11 
under the 
protest 
protest 
and the 
of the Act 
award 
Reasons for lreasury in 
depositing 
~hich it is 
deposited 
' 
Rs. p 
Rs. p 
Rs. P 
Note - In noting these particulars in the award statement, it may be 
sufficient to enter the letter a, b, cord as the case may be in column 7 
· of the statement when the whole amount of the award is shown in one 
of the four sub-columns a, b, c or d in the statement. 
74. Methods of making payments - There are five 
methods of making payments:-
( I) By direct payments, see paragraph 75(1) infra 
(2) By order on treasury, see paragraph 75(11) infra 
(3) By Money Order, see paragraph 75(III) infra 
(4) By cheque, see paragraph 75(1V) infra 
(5) By deposit in a treasury, see paragraph 75(V) infra 
75. Direct payments 
(V) By treasury deposit - In giving notice of the award 
under Section 12(2) and tendering payment under Section 
31 (I) to such of the persons interested as were not present 
personally or by their representatives when the award was 
made, the officer shall require them to appear personally or 
by representatives by a certain date to
receive payment of
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.] 
the compensation awarded to them, intimating also that no 
interest will be allowed to them if they fail to appear, if they 
do not appear and do not apply for a reference to the civil 
court under Section 18, the officer shall after any further 
endeavours to secure their attendance that may seem 
desirable, cause the amounts due to be paid to the treasury 
as revenue deposited payable to the persons to whom they 
are respectively due and vouched for in the Form marked 
E below. The officer shall also give notice to the payees of 
such deposits, specifying the treasury in which the deposit 
has been made. When then payees ultimately claim payment 
of sums placed in deposit, the amounts will be paid to them 
in the same manner as ordinary revenue deposit. The officer 
should, as far as possible, arrange to make the payments 
due in or near the village to which the payee belong in order 
that the number of un-disbursed sums to be placed in 
deposits on account of non-attendance may be reduced to 
a minimum. Whenever payment is claimed through a 
representative whether before or after deposit of the amount 
awarded, such representative must have legal authority for 
receiving the compensation on behalf of his principal. 
Fom1E 
Fonn E 
Name of work for which land 
Name of work for which land 
has been acquired 
has been acq\tired 
To 
the 
officer incharge 
of 
To the · officer incharge of 
treasury
treasury 
Please receive for transfer to 
Please receive for transfer to 
credit of revenue deposit the sum 
credit of revenue deposit the 
of Rs. 
on account of 
sum of Rs. 
on account 
compensation for land taken up 
of compensation for land taken 
for the above purpose payable as 
up for the above purpose 
detailed below:-
' 
payable as detailed below:-
251 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
252 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
Serial 
Name of 
Area 
Amount 
Rcm~rls 
Name 
Arl!a 
Amount 
Remarks 
Number in 1ersons 
of 
payable 
of 
of 
payable 
award 
owhom 
land 
to each 
persons 
land 
to each 
statement 
due 
to 
No. 
Acres 
Rs. 
Total 
Land Acquisition Officer 
Dated ---
whom 
due 
Acres 
Rs. 
Total 
Land Acquisition Officer 
Dated ---
Received the above amount 
Received 
the 
above 
and credited to Revenue 
amount and credited to 
deposit 
Revenue deposit 
Treasury Officer 
Treasury Officer 
Note - this form should be 
Note - this form should 
used when the amounts of 
be 
used 
when 
the 
compensation due are sent 
amounts of compensation 
to treasury in the absence of 
due are sent to treasury in 
proprietors who have failed 
the 
absence 
of 
to present themselves for 
proprietors 
who 
have 
payment. 
failed 
to 
present 
themselves for payment." 
18. Far from the aforesaid Standing Order coming to the assistance 
of the appellants, it is clear that the said Standing Order fleshes out 
Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act by insisting that compensation 
G 
must be paid as soon as the award is announced, vide paragraph 71. 
H 
Sufficient notice must be given to enable all payees to assemble at a 
place where they will receive their dues immediately. It is emphasized 
by the s&id paragraph that much trouble will be avoided ifthe principle 
that payment of compensation should be made at the time of the award
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.] 
is strictly observed. Also, it is important that the authorities draw in 
advance a sum sufficient to cover the probable amount of the award 
and to make payments. 
19. Paragraph 73 makes it clear that payment may be accepted 
either without protest or under protest, and Paragraph 74 makes it clear 
that there are five methods of making payment. The first.four methods 
are all methods strictly in consonance with Section 3 1 of the Land 
Acquisition Act in that they are all direct payments that have to be made 
to persons ready to accept compensation. This is clear from a reading 
of sub-paragraphs (I) to (IV) of paragraph 74. Even the second method, 
which is payment by order on the treasury, is a direct method of payment 
in cases where no officer is specially deputed for acquisition of land. In 
such cases instead of making a direct payment, a receipt is countersigned 
making it immediately payable at the treasury to the payee. Otherwise, 
in certain circumstances, payment is to be made by money order and/or 
by cheque. When we come to paragraph (V), it is clear that payment is 
made into the treasury only when persons who are served notice under 
Section 12(2) are not present personally at the time the award is delivered. 
Even though they may not appear at that stage, the officer shall require 
them to appear personally or by representatives by a certain date to 
receive payment of compensation
awarded. It is only if they fail to 
appear after such an intimation, and ifthe officer, after further endeavours 
to secure their attendance, cannot so secure their attendance, that 
amounts due are to be paid to the treasury as revenue deposited payable 
to persons to whom they are due. It is clear, therefore, that sub-para 
(V), when read in its proper perspective, is not a separate mode of 
payment by itself as is contended by learned counsel for the appellants. 
It is a residuary mode of payment after all necessary efforts have been 
made by the authorities to secure the attendance of the persons entitled 
to compensation, and it is only after all such methods have failed that, as 
a last resort, the money is then to be deposited in the treasury. In any 
case, such deposit in the treasury is referable only to Section 31 ( 1) and 
cannot ever be a substitute for deposit before the reference court as 
provided under Section 31 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, which applies 
in the circumstances mentioned in the aforesaid sub-section. We are, 
therefore, of the opinion that no distinction between the facts of this 
case and the facts in Pune Municipal Corporation can be drawn on 
253 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
254 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
this ground, and the ratio of Pune Municipal Corporation will apply 
on all fours to the facts of the present case. 
20. On facts, it is clear that neither tender, that is offer to the 
original claimant nor payment has been made in the manner provided by 
Section 31 read with Standing Order No. 28 of 1909. In the present 
case, as has been admitted in the affidavit filed in this Court, the DOA 
was not ready with compensation payable on the day the award was 
pronounced, but only handed over such compensation to the Land 
Acquisition Collector five years after the award was pronounced, that 
is, in 2002. The Land Acquisition Collector, in its tum, did nothing 
whatsoever to offer the said sum or pay it to the original owners. On the 
contrary, by moving an application on the eve of the coming into force of 
the 2013 Act, and by depositing the said amount of compensation paid to 
it in the year 2002 only on 30'h December, 2013, it is clear that the 
aforesaid mandatory provision and procedure were not followed by the 
authorities. The present original land owners' lands were notified for 
acquisition on 24•h October, 1961, of which possession was taken four 
decades later, in 2000; after which the land owners have yet to see the 
colour of the paltry amount of compensation offered which has neither 
been tendered noP paid to them. In the facts disclosed by this case, 
there could not be stronger facts to hold
such acquisition 11011 est in 
accordance with the object sought to be achieved by Section 24 (2) of 
the 2013 Act. 
21. At this juncture, it is necessary to advert to a standing 
instruction of the Government ofNCT of Delhi dated 12'h May, 2006 in 
which, pursuant to the directions passed by the High Court of Delhi vi de 
order dated s•h May 2005 in C.W.P. No. 1161 of 1988, the Government 
ofNCT of Delhi has fixed various time frames to complete acquisition 
proceedirigs. In so doing, what is of significance is contained in paragraphs 
3 and 4 which are set out herein below: 
"3. Taking-over possession of notified land: 
G 
i. As soon as the award is announced, the Land Acquisition 
Collector shall compulsorily issue notice to the interested 
persons u/s 12 of the L. A. Act and the service of notice 
shall be kept in records and shall also submit a demand of 
the compensation amount to the Land & Building 
Department with a copy to the DOA /intending agency 
H
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.] 
within 30 days of the announcement of the award. The 
Land & Building Department shall forward the demand to 
the ODA within 7 days. ODA/other agency will release 
the payment to L&B Deptt. within 30 days after receipt of 
the communication from the L&B Department/ LAC as 
the case may be. As soon as the money is received by the 
LAC, notice u/s 12(2) shall be issued. The LAC will 
takeover the possession of the land and handover the same 
to the DOA/intending department. The Land Acquisition 
Collector shall not take possession of the acquired land 
unless & until the compensation amount is received by him 
from the intending department. 
ii.It has be'en noticed that in a large number of cases, the 
LA Cs have not taken over the possession of the notified 
land as possession could not be taken by the DOA due to 
the fact that the land is heavily bui It up and in some cases, 
some unauthorized colonies have come up which are under 
consideration of Govt. oflndia for regularization. In all such 
cases, the LACs shall prepare a separate list village wise 
and shall be submitted to competent authority for taking a 
policy decision. 
255 
A 
B 
c 
D 
4. 
Payment 
of 
Compensation/ 
Enhanced 
E 
Compensation: 
On receipt of the amount of compensation from DOA/ 
Requisitioning Agency and on taking the possession of the 
land, the Land Acquisition Collector shall send a reference/ 
letter within I 5 days to
the interested persons for collecting 
F 
the payment of compensation. The Land Acquisition 
Collector will make the payment of the compensation within 
60 days to the land owner. In case of any dispute, the Land 
Acquisition Collector will refer the matter to the ADJ Court 
u/s 30 immediately after expiry of the 60 days. If interested 
person is not coming forward for taking compensation 
G 
amount and payment cannot be made within 60 days then 
compensation amount should be deposited in the court u/s 
31 within next 15 days." 
22.A cursory reading of these paragraphs will show that it is only 
H
256 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 5 S.C.R. 
pursuant to judicial orders that the'State wakes up from its slumber. It is 
important to note that a notice of award under Section 12(2) to persons 
interested can only be issued after money is received by the Land 
Acquisition Collector, and that the said Collector shall not take possession 
ofland unless and until compensation amount is received by him. Further, 
actual payment to land owners must be made latest within a period of60 
days. It is high time that the State realizes that persons whose property 
is expropriated need to be paid immediately so as to rehabilitate 
themselves. Also, it cannot be forgotten that the amount usually offered 
by way of an award of a Land Acquisition Collector under the 1894 Act 
is way below the real market value, which is only awarded and paid 
years later when the reference proceedings culmin~te in judgments of 
the High Courts and of th is Court. 
23. We now come to the argument of Shri Sharan that, in any 
case, on the facts of this case, the pitch is queered by the presence of 
subsequent purchasers. 
As has been pointed out in Meera Sahni's 
case [(2008) 9 SCC 177), thatthe moment Section 4 of the Delhi Lands 
(Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, applies, a sale subsequent to a 
Section 6 notification becomes illegal, being hit by Section 4 of the said 
Act. This being the case, it is of no avail to the State, to submit (which 
submission has been made in the
Supreme Court for the first time), that 
there is a dispute between the original owner and the subsequent 
purchaser, as a result of which compensation could neither be tendered 
nor paid. Apart from the said plea being an afterthought, it is also of no 
avail to either the DOA or the Land Acquisition Collector who, in any 
case, were not in any dilemma as to who should be paid. In fact, it is 
clear that the deposit made in Court pursuant to the order of the High 
Court of Delhi dated 30111 December, 2013 has only been made in order 
to pay the original owner of the land. Accordingly, this plea has also to 
be turned down. 
24. We now come to the other grounds on which Shri Sharan, in 
particular, based his arguments. According to Shri Sharan, a perusal of 
Section I IA of the Land Acquisition Act would show that acquisition 
proceedings can lapse only before vesting takes place, as once the 
property is vested in the State, nothing further remains to be done, and 
such property can never be reverted to the original owner. Section 11 A 
of the Land Acquisition Act is set out herein below:
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SU~HBIR SINGH & 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.] 
"l lA. Period within which an award shall be made-
The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within 
a period of two years from the date of the publication of 
the declaration and if no award is made within that period, 
the entire proceeding for the acquisition of the land shall 
lapse: 
Provided that in a case where the said declaration has 
been published befor0he commencement of the Land 
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68of1984), the 
award shall be made within a period of two years from 
such commencement. 
Explanation - In computing the period of two years 
referred to in this section, the period during which any 
action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said 
declaration is stayed by an order of a Court sh al I be 
excluded." 
25. The judgment ofSatendra Prasad Jain (supra) is also pressed 
into service by Shri Sharan, and in particular paragraph 15 thereof, which 
reads as under: 
"Ordinarily, the Government can take possession of the land 
proposed to be acquired only after an award of compensation 
in respect thereof has been made under Section 11. Upon 
the taking of possession the land vests in the Government, 
that is to say, the owner of the land loses to the Government 
the title to it. This is what Section 16 states. The provisions 
of Section 11 A are intended to benefit the landowner and 
ensure that the award is made within a period of two years 
from the
date of the Section 6 declaration. In the ordinary 
case, therefore, when Government fails to make an award 
within two years of the declaration under Section 6, the 
land has still not vested in the Government and its title 
remains with the owner, the acquisition proceedings are still 
pending and, by virtue of the provisions of Section 11 A, 
lapse. When Section 17( I) is applied by reason of urgency, 
Government takes possession of the land prior to the making 
of the award under Section 11 and thereupon the owner is 
257 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
258 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
divested of the title to the land which is vested in the 
Government. Section I 7( I) states so in unmistakable terms. 
Clearly, Section I IA can have no application to cases of 
acquisitions under Section 17 because the lands have 
already vested in the Government and there is no provision 
in the said Act by which land statutorily vested in the 
Government can revert to the owner." [para 15] 
26. Satendra Prasad Jain's case has been held in a subsequent 
judgment, namely, Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar, (2015) I 0 SCC 241, 
to have a limited ratio. The limited ratio has been said to be that it is not 
open to the beneficiary of an acquisition who has failed to make the 
necessary monies available, and who has been in occupation of the land 
since its possession was taken, to subsequently urge· that such possession 
was taken illegally. It is clear that on the facts of that case, it was the 
land owners who filed a writ petition asking for a mandamus to complete 
the acquisition proceedings, and the State and the beneficiary of 
acquisition tried to resile from it by contending that the acquisition 
proceedings had lapsed under Section 11 A of the Act. It was in these 
peculiar circumstances that the aforesaid judgment was delivered. 
27. Even going by paragraph 15 of the Satendra Prasad Jain's 
case, we find that the difference in phraseology between Section 11 A 
of the Land Acquisition Act and Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act really 
clinches the issue in favour of the land owners. The expression used in 
Section 24(2), namely, "deemed to have lapsed" is of great significance 
and differs from the use of the expression "lapsed" in Section 11 A. As is 
wel I settled, a deeming fiction is enacted so that a putative state of affairs 
must be imagined, the mind not being allowed to boggle at the logical 
consequence of such putative state of affairs. Even if we are to agree 
with Shri Sharan that, post vesting, acquisition proceedings cannot be 
said to lapse, yet we have to give effect to the deeming fiction contained 
in Section 24(2). In fact, Section 24(2) uses the expression "deemed to 
have lapsed" because the Legislature was cognizant of the fact that, in 
cases where compensation has not been paid, and physical possession 
handed over to the State, vesting has taken place, after which land 
acquisition proceedings could be said to have ended. For this reason 
also, we are of the view that Pune Municipal Corporation does not 
require to be revisited. 
28. It remains to deal with one submission of Shri A.K. Sanghi.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SUKHBIR SINGH & 
OTHERS [R.F.NARIMAN, J.] 
According to Shri Sanghi, physical possession has not been taken of the 
land in dispute. We are afraid this may not be correct. The Panchnama 
dated 27'h January, 2000 specifically records that possession of the land 
above stated was recovered and handed over to the representatives of 
the Office of Land and Buildings. The Panchnama is also signed by all 
the necessary officers. This piece ofland admittedly being open land is 
governed by the ratio ofRaghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State ofHaryana 
& Ors., (2012) I SCC 792 in which it has been held: 
"In Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agarwal 
[(2011) 5 SCC 394 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 74 7] , the Court 
referred to the judgments in Ba/want Narayan Bhagde v. 
M.D. Bhagwat [( 1976) I SCC 700] , Bal111oka11d Khatri 
Educational and l11dustrial Trust v. State of Punjab 
[(1996) 4 SCC 212] , P.K. Kalburqi v. State of Karnataka 
[(2005) 12 SCC 489], NTPC Ltd. v. Mahesh Dutta [(2009) 
8 SCC 339: (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 375] , Sita Ram Bhandar 
Society v. Gow. (NCT of Delhi) [(2009) I 0 SCC 50 I : 
(2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 268] and culled out the following 
propositions: (Banda DevelopmentAuthority case [(2011) 
5 sec 394: (2011) 2 sec (Civ) 747], sec p. 41 L para 
37) 
•"(i) No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to what act 
would constitute taking of possession of the acquired land. 
(ii) If the acquired lanu is vacant, the act of the State 
authority concerned
to go to the spot and prepare a 
panchnama will ordinarily be treated as sufficient to 
constitute taking of possession. 
(iii) If crop is standing on the acquired land or building/ 
structure exists, mere going on the spot by the authority 
concerned will, by itself, be not sufficient for taking 
possession. Ordinarily, in such cases, the authority 
concerned will have to give notice to the occupier of the 
building/structure or the person who has cultivated the land 
and take possession in the presence of independent 
witnesses and get their signatures on the panchnama. Of 
course, refusal of the ownerofthe land or building/structure 
may not lead to an inference that the possession of the 
259 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
260 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
acquired land has not been taken. 
(iv) If the acquisition is of a large tract ofland, it may not 
be possible for the acquiring/designated authority to take 
physical possession of each and every parcel of the land 
and it will be sufficient that symbolic possession is taken by 
B 
preparing appropriate document in the presence of 
independent witnesses and getting their signatures on such 
document. 
(v) If beneficiary of the acquisition is an agency/ 
instrumentality of the State and 80% of the total 
c 
compensation is deposited in terms ofSectiort 17(3-A) and 
substantial p011ion of the acquired land has been utilised in 
furtherance of the particular public purpose, then the court 
may reasonably presume that possession of the acquired 
land has been taken." [para 27] 
D 
29. As'the present case will fall within sub-paragraph (ii), physical 
possession of the land can be said to have been taken on the facts of the 
present case. 
30. Having regard to the law declared in the Pune Municipal 
Corporation case, as followed by the other judgments of this Court, we 
E 
are of the opinion that the High Court is correct and that the impugned 
judgment calls for no interference .. The appeals are, accordingly, 
dismissed. 
Nidhi Jain 
Appeals dismissed. 
F