JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking declaration that the order of demolition dated 12.05.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1- the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC) in Unauthorized Construction Case No. 19 of 2018 cannot be given effect to by the respondent-RMC with respect to a land under Khata no. 21, Plot no. 288, Sub Plot no. 288 (Part), admeasuring 3 kathas 8 chhataks 36 sq. ft. situated at village Kadru, Thana No. 208, Thana – Argora, District- Ranchi which is the subject matter of the Sale Deed No. 17396 dated 05.11.2007. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 10.01.2025 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Administrator, RMC, Ranchi (the respondent no. 2) whereby the petitioner has been directed to remove the unauthorized construction pursuant to the order dated 12.05.2018 passed in Unauthorized Construction Case no. 19 of 2018. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased two plots of land vide Sale Deed No. 12269 dated 12.11.2002 (with respect to plot no. 288/A ad- measuring an area of 2 kathas 8 chhataks) (hereinafter to be referred as “L1 plot”) and Sale Deed No. 17396 dated 05.11.2007 (with respect to Plot No. 288 (Part) ad-measuring an area of 3 kathas 8 chhataks, 36 Sq.ft.) (hereinafter to be referred as “L2 plot”). 3. It is further submitted that the construction of residential premises was carried out by the petitioner over L2 plot and he has been still living and enjoying peaceful possession over the same. A fraudulent registration case was filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by the respondent no. 3 vide Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13 of 2017-18 challenging the registration of Sale Deed No. 12269 with respect to L1 plot and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, vide order dated 02.02.2018, cancelled the said sale deed. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1204 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2024 setting aside the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, however I.A No. 4750 of 2018, which was filed challenging the order dated 12.05.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Un-authorized Construction Case No. 19/2018, was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy. 1 in Un-authorized Construction Case No. 19/2018, was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application dated 23.04.2024 before the respondent no. 1 for recall of the order dated 12.05.2018 passed in U.C Case No. 19 of 2018. The petitioner also preferred L.P.A. No. 102 of 2024 against the order dated 30.01.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1204 of 2018, however the learned Division Bench of this Court, vide order 26.06.2024, dismissed the said appeal. Subsequently, the Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22971 of 2024 filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 21.10.2024. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has preferred Original (Title) Suit No. 411 of 2024 claiming title over L1 & L2 plots which is pending adjudication before the Civil Court, Ranchi and during the pendency of the said title suit, the petitioner has represented the Ranchi Municipal Corporation requesting inter alia not to take any action pursuant to the earlier order dated 12.05.2018, however vide letter dated 02.12.2024, the petitioner has been served a notice for removal of unauthorized construction. The petitioner has also been served a notice of demolition dated 10.01.2025, referring to earlier order passed by the respondent no. 1 fixing the date of demolition as on 19.01.2025. 5. It is further argued that the question of adjudication of right and title can only be decided in the competent civil court and not elsewhere and thus, it cannot be said that the vendors of the petitioner did not have the valid right, title and interest to convey the land in question. Moreover, in W.P.(C) No. 1204 of 2018, the land in dispute was L1 plot which was different from L2 plot and there was no order of demolition of any building constructed over L2 plot. Thus, no demolition of any building constructed over L2 plot can be carried out pursuant to the order passed in U.C Case No. 19 of 2018. 6. It is also contended that in view of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, “the Act, 2013)”, the proceeding for acquisition of the land in question has lapsed since the petitioner has long standing possession over the said land since 2002. 7. 6. It is also contended that in view of section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, “the Act, 2013)”, the proceeding for acquisition of the land in question has lapsed since the petitioner has long standing possession over the said land since 2002. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that the land in question was acquired along with other lands vide Notification No.RAN-155/61-1400R dated 03.02.1961 issued by the Government of Bihar and the compensation with respect to the acquired land was received by one Most. Kone- legal heir of the recorded tenant namely Khawa and Budhu Oraon vide LA Case No.261/1960-61. The acquired land was subsequently handed over to A.G. Office Employees’ Co-operative Society Ltd. in two phases i.e. on 04.05.1962 and 04.03.1963 and in lieu thereof, compensation amount of Rs.1,84,005.95 was received from the A.G. Office Employees’ Co-operative Society Ltd. 8. It is also submitted that the land admeasuring 13 decimals situated over Khata No. 21, Plot No.288 was allotted in favour of late Awadhesh Kumar (the father of the respondent no.3) and a Deed of Conveyance was executed on 08.06.1963. One Budhu Oraon filed an application under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 being S.A.R. Case No.11/984 of 1974 which was allowed vide order dated 16.03.1981 passing the order of restoration in his favour. The father of the respondent no. 3 preferred an appeal being S.A.R. Appeal No. 6R15/81-82 which was allowed in his favour vide order dated 19.10.1981 setting aside the order dated 16.03.1981 passed in S.A.R. Case No. 11/984 of 1974 and the said order attained finality. 9. It is further argued that the petitioner by suppressing all these facts started claiming L1 plot on the strength of the Sale Deed No.12269 dated 12.11.2002 and he also got a plan sanctioned over the said plot from RRDA vide Building Plan No.80/2003. However, on the complaint filed by the respondent no. 3, the registration of the sale deed dated 12.11.2002 was cancelled in Fraudulent Registration Case No.13/2017-18 vide order dated 02.02.2018 and the building plan which was sanctioned on the strength of the fraudulent sale deed was also cancelled vide order dated 12.05.2018. However, on the complaint filed by the respondent no. 3, the registration of the sale deed dated 12.11.2002 was cancelled in Fraudulent Registration Case No.13/2017-18 vide order dated 02.02.2018 and the building plan which was sanctioned on the strength of the fraudulent sale deed was also cancelled vide order dated 12.05.2018. Both these orders were challenged by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1204 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2024 whereby despite holding the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi annulling the Sale Deed No.12269 dated 12.11.2002 as bad in law, the learned Bench did not interfere with the order dated 12.05.2018 passed in U.C. Case No.19/2018 by observing that the Sale Deed No.12269 of the year 2002 was void as the vendors were not having any title on L1 plot at the time of executing the sale deed. 10. It is also submitted that the petitioner had suppressed the fact in previous round of litigation that besides the sale deed dated 12.11.2002, he had also purchased L2 plot vide sale deed no. 17396 dated 05.11.2007. Moreover, since the entire land appertaining to plot no. 288 admeasuring 13 decimals had been acquired by the State Government at the expense of A.G. Office Employees’ Co-operative Society Ltd. which was allotted in favour of father of the respondent no. 3, the vendors of the petitioner had no right to execute sale deed with respect to L2 plot. 11. It is further submitted that the petitioner had got only one plan sanctioned vide BC No. 80 of 2003, the construction made over which was ordered to be demolished. The said order of demolition dated 12.05.2018 has been upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such it is not open for the petitioner to resist the demolition on the ground that he had also purchased L2 plot vide another registered deed bearing No.17396 dated 05.11.2007. 12. It is also contended that once it has been held by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1204 of 2018 that the vendors of the petitioner had no right, title and interest with respect to Plot No.288 sold in the year 2002 and the said order had been affirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the question of conveying any further land in the year 2007 does not arise. In fact, L2 plot purchased vide sale deed no. In fact, L2 plot purchased vide sale deed no. 17396 dated 05.11.2007 is overlapping the L1 plot which the petitioner claims to have purchased vide Deed No.12269 dated 12.11.2002 and the same has already been held to be void by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which has been affirmed by learned Division Bench as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. It is also submitted that the notice for demolition has in fact been issued in compliance and execution of the order dated 12.05.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1 which was not even interfered vide orders dated 30.01.2024 and 26.06.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1204 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 102 of 2024 respectively as well as vide order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 22971 of 2024. Therefore, there is practically no ground with the petitioner to resist such demolition. A complaint has been made by the respondent no. 3 regarding unauthorized construction of some commercial shops on the front side of Plot No. 288 whereupon U.C. Case No.90/2024 has been instituted by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation against the petitioner. During proceeding of the said case, the Junior Engineer of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has visited the said plot on 18.06.2024 and has submitted a report stating that three shops have been constructed in front set back area of plot no. 288 without any sanctioned plan. 14. It is further argued that no fresh cause of action has arisen on 10.01.2025 as contended by the petitioner, rather the notice dated 10.01.2025 has been issued in compliance and execution of the order dated 12.05.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1 in U.C. Case No.19 of 2018 which has already been upheld by this Hon’ble Court in W.P. (C) No. 1204 of 2018 and L.P.A. No. 102 of 2024 as well as the same has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Moreover, the petitioner has also filed an application seeking injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC in Original (Title) Suit No. 411 of 2024 which has already been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 15.07.2024. 15. Moreover, the petitioner has also filed an application seeking injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC in Original (Title) Suit No. 411 of 2024 which has already been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 15.07.2024. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent-RMC submits that the Building Plan No. 80 of 2003 was cancelled by the RMC passing the order of demolition of the building vide order dated 12.05.2018 since the sanction of the building plan was fraudulently obtained by the petitioner. Subsequently, the order dated 12.05.2018 was challenged by filing I.A No.4750 of 2018 in WPC No. 1204/2018, however the said I.A was rejected observing that since the vendors were not having any title at the time of executing the sale deed no.12269 of 2002, the same was void. 16. It is further submitted that the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 1204 of 2018 has been affirmed both by learned Division Bench of this court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme court and as such the same has attained finality. 17. The sale deed submitted by the petitioner with the Building Plan no. 80/2003 was the sale deed no. 13867/12269 dated 12-11-2002 pertaining to R.S. Plot No. 288/A (L1 plot) and as such, the demolition order is with respect to the plan sanctioned on the said plot. 18. It is also submitted that no building plan has been sanctioned on the basis of the Sale Deed No. 17396 dated 05.11.2007 in respect of Plot No. 288 (part) i.e., L2 plot and as such, the plea that residential premises has been constructed on the said land has no relevance with respect to the order dated 12.05.2018 passed in U.C Case no. 19 of 2018. 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 20. Thrust of the argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased L1 plot vide Sale Deed No. 12269 dated 12.11.2002 and L2 plot vide Sale Deed No. 17396 dated 05.11.2007 and since the order of demolition dated 12.05.2018 has been passed in Unauthorized Construction Case No. 19 of 2018 only with respect to L1 plot, the said order cannot be given effect to by the respondent-RMC for demolition of any construction made over L2 plot. 21. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 21. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that once a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1204 of 2018 has already held that the sale deed no. 12269 executed in favour of the petitioner was null and void since the vendors of the petitioner had no right to convey L1 plot and the said observation has attained finality upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court, another deed i.e. sale deed no. 17396 dated 05.11.2007 executed in favour of the petitioner by the same persons and for the part of the same land has also automatically become null and void as the entire plot no. 288 was acquired by the State Government long back in the year 1961 through Notification No. RAN-155/61-1400R. 22 . I have perused the record of the present case. It is evident that a large chunk of land admeasuring about 30.52 acres including the land in question was acquired by the Government of Bihar vide Notification No. RAN-155/61-1400R dated 03.02.1961 and the same was subsequently handed over to the A.G Office Employees’ Cooperative Society Ltd. on payment of compensation amount of Rs. 1,84,005.95. The land admeasuring 13 decimals under Khata No. 21 and Plot no. 288 was allotted by the Society to the father of the respondent no. 3 vide deed of conveyance dated 08.06.1963. The said acquisition was challenged by Joseph Lakra and Others by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C No. 59 of 1975(R), however the said writ petition was dismissed by learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.03.1976. 23. It further appears that one Budhu Oraon had filed S.A.R No. 11/984 of 1974 against the father of the respondent no. 3 which was allowed and the order of restoration of land in question was passed by the S.A.R Court, however the appeal filed by the father of the respondent no. 3 being S.A.R Appeal No. 6 R 15/81-82 was allowed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi observing that after acquisition of the land in question, the right title and interest of Budhu Oraon over the said land had got automatically exhausted and as such he had no right to claim restoration of the same. The respondent no. 3 has asserted that the order passed in S.A.R Appeal No. 6 R 15/81-82 has attained finality since the same was not challenged in any higher Court/Forum. The respondent no. 3 has asserted that the order passed in S.A.R Appeal No. 6 R 15/81-82 has attained finality since the same was not challenged in any higher Court/Forum. The petitioner has also not denied the said assertion of the respondent no. 3. 24. It is important to note that by way of two sale deeds being sale deed no. 12269 dated 12.11.2002 with respect to L1 plot and sale deed no. 17396 dated 05.11.2007 with respect to L2 plot, the land in question was transferred to the petitioner. The petitioner applied for sanction of map vide Building Plan No. 80 of 2003 for construction of a building over L1 plot. The respondent no. 3 filed complaint before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for cancellation of sale deed no. 12269 dated 12.11.2002 with respect to L1 plot. Thereafter, a Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13 of 2017-18 was registered and finally the sale deed no. 12269 was cancelled vide order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. The respondent no. 3 also filed an application before the respondent no. 1 whereupon Unauthorized Construction Case No. 19 of 2018 was instituted and vide order dated 12.05.2018, Building Plan no. 80 of 2003 was cancelled ordering demolition of the residential building constructed over the L1 plot. 25. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1204 of 2018 challenging the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi whereby the registration of sale deed no. 12269 was cancelled. In the said writ petition, the petitioner by filing an I.A No. 4750 of 2018 had also challenged the order dated 12.05.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1 whereby order for demolition of the building situated over L1 plot was issued. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 30.01.2024 observing that the date on which the petitioner had purchased the L1 plot through registered sale deed dated 12.11.2002, his vendors had no title over the said plot as the same was already acquired in the year 1961 itself by the government and as such, in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Coop. Housing Society, Jaipur and Others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 427 , the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner was void qua the government. Subhash Sindhi Coop. Housing Society, Jaipur and Others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 427 , the sale transaction in favour of the petitioner was void qua the government. 26. It was further held that in view of the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Vinod Shankar Jha @ Binod Shankar Jha vs. The State of Jharkhand & Allied Cases reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 243 , the Registrar had no power to annul the sale deed no. 12269 of the year 2002 and as such the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18 annulling the sale deed no.12269 of the year 2002 was bad in law and was liable to be set aside. It was also held that the petitioner was not entitled to get any relief against the respondent no. 1 as prayed in I.A No. 4750 of 2018 since even without the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Fraudulent Registration Case No. 13/2017-18, the sale deed no.12269 of 2002 was a void one as the vendors were not having any title at the time of executing the sale deed. The order passed in W.P.(C) No. 1204 of 2018 was affirmed by learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No. 102 of 2024 and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22971 of 2024. Hence, the said order has attained finality. 27. Original (Title) Suit No. 411 of 2024 filed by the petitioner claiming his right, title and interest upon the land in question is still pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) – XVII, Ranchi and an application filed by the petitioner seeking injunction under Order XXXIX rule 1 read with section 151 CPC has been rejected vide order dated 15.07.2024. 28. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while passing the order dated 30.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 1204 of 2018 has specifically observed that the land in question along with other lands were acquired by the government in the year 1961 i.e., much before purchase of the same by the petitioner, and as such the sale transaction made in favour of the petitioner was void. The said observation of the Co-ordinate Bench has already been affirmed by learned Division Bench of this court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme court and the same has attained finality. 29. Even if it is accepted that the said observation has been made in a case where the issue was with respect to L1 plot and not with respect to L2 plot, the same will not make any difference since both the lands purchased by the petitioner are parts of the plot no. 288 which was acquired by the Government of Bihar for A.G. Office Employees’ Cooperative Society Ltd. vide gazette notification no. RAN-155/61-1400R dated 03.02.1961. 30. I have also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sidhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur & Others reported in (2013) 5 SCC 427 wherein it has been held that there can be no quarrel with respect to the settled legal proposition that a purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and can only claim compensation subsequent to the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 in respect of the land as the sale transaction in such a situation is void qua the government. 31. It is a settled law that a vendor cannot transfer a title to the vendee better than what he himself possess. The said principle is arising from the maxim “namo dat quod non habet” i.e no one can confer better title than what he himself has. In the case in hand, since the land in question was already acquired by the Government of Bihar and the same was transferred to the A.G. Office Employees’ Co-operative Society Ltd., the vendors of the petitioner had no title over the land in question after the acquisition of the same. As such, the petitioner cannot claim title either over L1 plot or L2 plot on the basis of the sale deeds executed by their vendors in his favour. 32. As such, the petitioner cannot claim title either over L1 plot or L2 plot on the basis of the sale deeds executed by their vendors in his favour. 32. Otherwise also, it has not been specifically claimed by the petitioner that a building plan has been sanctioned by the competent authority for construction of the building situated over L2 plot, rather it is the specific stand of the RMC that building plan was sanctioned with respect to L1 plot only and thus even if it is accepted that any construction has been made over L2 plot, the same is an unauthorized one which is liable to be demolished. 33. Moreover, it was open to the petitioner in previous proceedings i.e., W.P.(C) No. 1204 of 2018 and U.C Case No. 19 of 2018 to disclose the fact about purchase of L2 plot apart from L1 plot and any construction made over the said plot, however the petitioner concealed the said fact till the order of demolition was passed by the respondent no. 1 which attained finality upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Had the said fact been disclosed by the petitioner in earlier proceedings, there would have been determination on the said point as well. No reasonable explanation has been offered by the petitioner as to why he had not earlier raised the said issue. Therefore, I am of the view that such an issue cannot be permitted to be raised in this proceeding in the light of the doctrine of “constructive res judicata”. 34. The doctrine of “constructive res judicata” is not only confined to the issues which the court is actually asked to decide, but it also covers the issues or facts which are part of the subject- matter of the litigation and the same could have been raised. It is well settled that an adjudication is conclusive and final not only as to the actual matter determined but as to every other matter which the parties might and ought to have litigated and have had decided as incidental to or essentially connected with subject- matter of the litigation and every matter coming into the legitimate purview of the original action both in respect of the matters of claim and defence. It is an abuse of the process of court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re- litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. 35. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M. Nagabhushana v. State of Karnataka & Others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 408 wherein it has been held as under: - “12. The principles of res-judicata are of universal application as they are based on two age-old principles, namely, interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium which means that it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation and the other principle is nemo debet bis vexari, si constat curiae quod sit pro una et eademn causa meaning thereby that no one ought to be vexed twice in a litigation if it appears to the court that it is for one and the same cause. This doctrine of res judicata is common to all civilised system of jurisprudence to the extent that a judgment after a proper trial by a court of competent jurisdiction should be regarded as final and conclusive determination of the questions litigated and should forever set the controversy at rest. 13. That principle of finality of litigation is based on high principle of public policy. In the absence of such a principle great oppression might result under the colour and pretence of law inasmuch as there will be no end of litigation and a rich and malicious litigant will succeed in infinitely vexing his opponent by repetitive suits and actions. This may compel the weaker party to relinquish his right. The doctrine of res judicata has been evolved to prevent such an anarchy. That is why it is perceived that the plea of res judicata is not a technical doctrine but a fundamental principle which sustains the rule of law in ensuring finality in litigation. This principle seeks to promote honesty and a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties.” 36. In the case of Shiv Chander More and Others Vs. This principle seeks to promote honesty and a fair administration of justice and to prevent abuse in the matter of accessing court for agitating on issues which have become final between the parties.” 36. In the case of Shiv Chander More and Others Vs. Lieutenant Governor and Others reported in (2014) 11 SCC 744 , the fact was that in the first round of litigation, the appellants’ claim for grant of fresh lease after expiry of the old one was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however in the second round of litigation, the appellants raised a new ground that in terms of the 1966 Regulation, the appellants had acquired a right to continue in possession till such time their case fell under one or the other contingencies enumerated in Regulation 151 of the said Regulations. Their Lordships have held that as the occupant neither urged any such point nor raised any such contention in the previous round of litigation, they are debarred from doing so in the present proceedings on the principle of “constructive res judicata”. It is further held that the “constructive res judicata” in principle applies to the writ proceedings. 37. Another limb of the argument of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the acquisition proceeding for the land in question has lapsed in view of section 24 of the Act, 2013 since the petitioner is in possession of the same since 2002. I do not find any substance in the said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that after acquisition of the land in question, the compensation for the same was paid to the lawful claimant(s). Thus, the acquisition proceeding was completed in the year 1961 itself. The acquired land was transferred to A.G. Office Employees’ Co-operative Society Ltd. in two phases i.e. on 04.05.1962 and 04.03.1963 and thereafter 13 decimals of land comprising of L1 and L2 plots was transferred by the A.G. Office Employees’ Co-operative Society Ltd. in favour of father of the respondent no. 3 by way of deed of conveyance dated 08.06.1963. 38. In the case of Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) Vs. Manoharlal reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the word “or” used in Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013 between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. 3 by way of deed of conveyance dated 08.06.1963. 38. In the case of Indore Development Authority (LAPSE-5 J.) Vs. Manoharlal reported in (2020) 8 SCC 129 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the word “or” used in Section 24 (2) of the Act, 2013 between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. There is no lapse of proceeding for acquisition if compensation has been paid but possession has not been taken. Thus, even if it is assumed that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question since 2002, the same cannot entitle him to continue with the possession of the same, that too when the sale deeds executed in his favour were void. 39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of demolition dated 12.05.2018 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Unauthorized Construction Case No. 19 of 2018 as well as the notice dated 10.01.2025 issued by the respondent no. 2. 40. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.