Agra Development Authority, Agra vs Anek Singh
Background
The Agra Development Authority had acquired certain land, but the original landowners (the respondents) filed a writ petition claiming that the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because compensation had allegedly not been paid to them. The Allahabad High Court's Single Judge, relying on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, allowed the writ petition and declared the acquisition lapsed. The Division Bench upheld this on appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's entire reasoning rested on the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment, which had since been expressly overruled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. Under the Constitution Bench's clarified law, a Section 24(2) lapse occurs only where both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid for five years; if either possession is taken or compensation is paid/tendered, there is no lapse, and mere non-deposit of compensation in court does not by itself cause a lapse. Since the High Court's judgment was founded entirely on a legal position that no longer held good, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment, held that the acquisition had not lapsed, and dismissed the original writ petition, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
When a Constitution Bench overrules an earlier Supreme Court precedent, any lower court judgment based solely on that overruled precedent becomes unsustainable and liable to be set aside: landowners cannot claim their land acquisition has "lapsed" merely on non-deposit of compensation in court if possession was validly taken or compensation was otherwise paid/tendered.