NCT OF DELHI AND ORS versus JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS.
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 692, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Facts
[2015) 2 S.C.R. 692 
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS 
v. 
JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2592 of2015 etc.) 
FEBRUARY 27, 2015 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
A 
B 
c 
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -
Lapsing of acquisition - When can be declared- Held: When 
it is established that award u/s. 11 of Land Acquisition Act, 
1894 was passed at least five years before commencement D 
of 2013 Act, possession had not been taken or compensation 
not paid, the land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed 
to have lapsed- Jn the facts of the present case, respondents 
are entitled to protection uls. 24(2) of 2013 Act - Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 11. 
E 
Radiance Fincap (P) ~td. v. Union of India & Ors. 
2015(1) SCALE 677; Arvind Bansal v. State of Haryana 
2015 (3) SCALE 200; Kamai/ Kaur v. State of Punjab 
(2015) 1JT377; RajivChowdhrieHUFv. Union of/ndia 
F 
2015 AIR 614- relied on. 
• 
Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal 
Solanki2014 (1) SCR 783 = (2014) 3 SCC 183, Union 
of India vs. Shiv Raj (2014) 6 sec 564 and Bimla Devi 
G 
VS. State of Haryana (2014) 6 sec 583- referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2014 (1) SCR 78.3 
referred to 
para3 
H 
692
693 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
"' 
(2014) 6 sec 564 
referred to 
para 3 
(2014) 6 sec 583 
referred to 
para 3 
2015(1) SCALE 677 
relied on 
para 4 
2015 (3) SCALE 200 
relied on 
para 4 
(2015) 1 JT 377 
relied on 
para 4 
2015AIR 614 
relied on 
para 4 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2592 
of2015 
D From the Judgment and Order dated 27.05.2014 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 2806 of 
2004 
E 
WITH 
Civil Appeal Nos: 2586, 2587, 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591 
and 2593 of 2015 
Amrendra Sharan, Rachana Srivastava, Utkarsh Sharma, 
F Viresh B. Saharya, V. B. Saharya (For Saharya & Co.) for 
the Appellants. 
Ravinder Sethi, Rajeev Ghawana, Gautam Narayan, E. C. 
Agrawala for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Any determination under 
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and 
Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI v. JAGJIT SINGH 
694 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 
ResettlementAct, 2013, must proceed sequentially. First, the A 
factum of an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition 
···Act, 1894, must be clearly established. The said Award must 
predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., 01.01.2014., by 
at least five years (or more), ie., the Award must have been 
passed on or before 01.01.2009. This having been B 
established, if possession is found to not have been taken, 
or compensation n9t paid, then the proceedings shall be 
deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the appropriate 
Government, if it so. chooses, may reinitiate acquisition C 
proceedings in respect of the same land, but under the 2013 
Act's regime. 
2. Each and . every deeming operation under Section 24(2) 
requires unambiguously and unvaryingly that a factual conclusion 
D 
be drawn about the passing of the Award under Section 11, of 
the 1894 Act, on or before 01.01.2009; further, the absence of 
compensation having been paid or the absence of possession 
having been taken by the acquirer, either of these, must be a 
proven point of fact, as a threshold requirement attracting the lapse. 
E 
3. This Court has in a number of decisions including Pune 
Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 
3 SCC 183, Union of India vs. Shiv Raj (2014) 6 SCC 564 and 
Simla Devi VS. State of Haryana (2014) 6 sec 583, clarified 
F 
the manner in which the new provision is to be interpreted viz.'
that the acquisition lapses. 
4. It. has been contended in other Appeals before this Court that 
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land G 
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ~ettlement Ordinance, 2014, 
issued on 31st December, 2014, clarifies that if possession of 
the acquired land has not been taken owing to interim Orders 
passed in this regard the acquisition may be protected and 
insulated from the purpose and intendment of Section 24 of the H
695 . 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 2013Act. This Court has now clarified in Radiance Fincap (P) 
Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4283 of 2011 
decided on 12.01.2015] that the Ordinance shall have 
prospective operation only. This Court therein held as under: 
B 
c 
"The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the 
acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the 
statutory right and, therefore, the said right cannot be 
taken away by an Ordinance by inserting proviso to the 
abovesaid sub-Section without giving retrospective 
effect to the same." 
The legal position has been subsequently reiterated by this 
Court in Arvind Bansal v. State of Haryana (Civil Appeal 
Nos.417-418 of 2015 decided on 13.01.2015) and Karnail 
D Kaur v. State of Punjab [Civil Appeal No. 7 424 of 2013 decided 
on 22.01.2015]. We are in respectful agreement with all these 
decisions. In the event that there is no ambiguity that (a) the 
Award is over five years old and (b) that compensation has 
not been paid or (c) that possession of the land has not been 
E taken, the acquisition is liable to be quashed. 
In Rajiv 
Chowdhrie HUF v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No.8786 of 2013, 
decided on 06.02.2015], noting that the physical possession 
of the land had nc.t,. been taken by the Respondents, nor 
F compensation paid by the Respondents to the Appellant in 
respect whereof the Award was passed on 6.08.2007, the 
acquisition proceedings had been declared as having
lapsed. 
The same position was arrived at in Rajiv Chowdhrie HUF v. 
Union of India in Civil Appeal No.8785 of 2013 decided on 
G 10.12.2014 by a different Bench of this Court. 
5 . These Appeals assail one Judgment and an Order [passed 
in light of that Judgment] of a Division Bench of the Delhi High 
Court, which had allowed the Writ Petitions before it, and 
H declared that the acquisitions had lapsed for the reason that

GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI v. JAGJIT SINGH 
696 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] 
the possession had not been taken and compensation, too, A 
not paid. This is sufficient ground for granting the protection 
envisaged by Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. 
6. The Appeals are dismissed in the above terms. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
dismissed. 
Appeals B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H