LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Civil Property & InheritanceSupreme Court of India

Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs. Manjeet Singh Anand & Anr.

Civil Appeal · 2023 INSC 64Decided 20 Jan 2023
Civil Appeal No. 360 of 2023
M.R. Shah · C.T. Ravikumar

Background

The Delhi Government acquired a piece of land in 1964 under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award was made in 1967, physical possession was taken in June 1967 by drawing a panchnama, and the compensation was deposited with the Reference Court in November 1967. Decades later, after the 2013 Act came into force, Manjeet Singh Anand, who was not the recorded owner but claimed rights through a General Power of Attorney and receipts, filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court asking it to declare that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The High Court agreed with him, relying on an earlier High Court ruling that itself rested on the Supreme Court's decision in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014).

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the Government's appeal and set aside the High Court's order. It pointed out that Pune Municipal Corporation had been expressly overruled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020), which held that an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) only when the authorities have neither taken possession nor paid compensation for five years or more before 1 January 2014. If either possession was taken or compensation was paid, there is no lapse. Here, possession had been taken in 1967 by panchnama, which the Constitution Bench recognises as a valid mode of taking possession, so there could be no lapse. The Court also held that the High Court should never have entertained the petition at all, because under Shiv Kumar vs. Union of India (2019) and later cases, a subsequent purchaser or a person holding only a power of attorney has no legal standing to challenge an acquisition or claim that it has lapsed.

Lesson Learnt

An old land acquisition does not automatically "lapse" just because compensation was not paid to the owner. If the government actually took possession (or paid compensation), the acquisition stands under the 2013 Act. Also, someone who bought land or holds a power of attorney after the acquisition process began cannot go to court to claim the acquisition has lapsed; that right belongs only to the original recorded owner.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs. Manjeet Singh Anand & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware