Sanjay Karol JUDGMENT
Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, J.
Interlocutory Application No. 37319 of 2022
1. We have recorded reasons for condoning the delay in the main judgment.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. The first Respondent filed a Writ Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi for questioning the acquisition of the lands subject matter of the Writ Petition. The acquisition was under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act'). The notification Under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the 1894 Act was issued on 23rd June 1989, which culminated in an award Under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, which was made on 18th June 1992. In the meanwhile, in the year 1990, the first Respondent filed a Writ Petition challenging the acquisition proceedings, which was dismissed on 20th May 2005. On 19th January 2006, the Appellant took over possession of the acquired land. With effect from 1st January 2014, the 1894 Act was repealed and the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act') were brought into force. On 25th May 2015, the first Respondent filed a Writ Petition contending that in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the acquisition shall be deemed to have lapsed. By the impugned judgment and order dated 11th August 2016, by relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. 
MANU/SC/0055/2014 : (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court held that Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act will apply as the compensation has not been paid to the first Respondent although physical possession of the acquired land has been taken over by the Appellant. The High Court, however, directed the Appellant to pay compensation to the first Respondent in accordance with the 2013 Act.
3. On 6th March 2020, a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. MANU/SC/0300/2020 : (2020) 8 SCC 129 expressly overruled its earlier decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. MANU/SC/0055/2014 : (2014) 3 SCC 183 and all other decisions based on the said decision. It was held by the Constitution Bench that another decision of this Court in the case of Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.