Delhi Development Authority vs. Batti & Ors. (with Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Batti & Anr.)
Background
Land in a Delhi village was acquired in the early 1990s for planned development, with an award announced in 1992. The respondent, daughter-in-law of one of the recorded co-owners, filed a writ petition in 2015 claiming the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act because possession had allegedly not been taken and compensation had not been paid. The Delhi High Court agreed and held the acquisition had lapsed, relying on the Supreme Court's then-existing precedent in Pune Municipal Corporation, while leaving open a separate dispute over who actually owned the land (title was disputed, with the land recorded in the name of the village's Gaon Sabha).
Decision Breakdown
By the time this appeal was heard, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) had overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, clarifying that an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) only if BOTH possession was not taken AND compensation was not paid for five years or more before 2014, satisfying either condition is enough to keep the acquisition alive. Here, the undisputed facts showed the government had taken possession of the land and handed it to the Forest Department for use as a green belt/water body, and compensation could not have been paid in any event because the land's ownership/title itself remained disputed. Since possession had been taken, the acquisition could not be said to have lapsed. Decision Breakdown (continued: outcome): The appeals were allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
Under the current legal position, a decades-old land acquisition does not lapse merely because compensation was not paid, if the government had already taken possession of the land, and a person cannot claim compensation for land whose title/ownership is itself genuinely disputed.