Delhi Development Authority vs. Amit Jain & Ors.
Background
Land measuring about 5 bighas across several khasra numbers had been acquired by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) years earlier. The landowners went to the Delhi High Court arguing that since compensation had not been paid to them, the acquisition should be treated as having lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law. The High Court agreed and declared the entire acquisition lapsed, relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Pune Municipal Corporation) that treated non-payment of compensation alone as enough to lapse an acquisition. The DDA appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that a five-judge Constitution Bench had since overruled the Pune Municipal Corporation view in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020), clarifying that acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) only if BOTH possession was not taken AND compensation was not paid, not if either one alone is missing. Here, government records showed physical possession of most of the land had actually been taken back in 2010 by drawing formal possession proceedings (a panchnama), which the Court held is legally sufficient even without literal physical dispossession. Since possession had been taken for almost all the land (except a small built-up 3-biswa portion), there was no automatic lapse. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the DDA's appeal.
Lesson Learnt
An acquisition does not automatically lapse merely because compensation was delayed. If the government took possession of the land (even through official possession proceedings/panchnama rather than physical takeover), that is enough to prevent the acquisition from lapsing under the 2013 Act.