Delhi Development Authority vs Bhagi Singh
Background
Land at Khasra No. 28 in Delhi had been acquired under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector's affidavit stated that possession had been taken over and handed to the Delhi Development Authority on 21 March 2007 by drawing up a panchnama (a written possession memo) and possession report. The landowners nevertheless went to the Delhi High Court, which in 2015 declared the acquisition "deemed to have lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the ground that no physical possession had been taken. The DDA appealed.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order as directly contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020). It reproduced that ruling's conclusions: an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) only when, for five years or more before 1 January 2014, the authorities had neither taken possession nor paid compensation -- if either was done, there is no lapse. The Constitution Bench also held that the recognised way of taking possession under the 1894 Act is by drawing up an inquest report or memorandum (panchnama), after which the land vests in the State and cannot be "divested". Since possession here had been taken on 21 March 2007 in exactly that manner, the acquisition could not have lapsed, and the High Court's contrary declaration was unsustainable.
Lesson Learnt
Under the 2013 land acquisition law, an old acquisition does not automatically lapse just because the owner claims the land is still physically with them; if the government has recorded taking possession through a panchnama, or has paid compensation, the acquisition stands. Landowners should focus on claiming proper compensation rather than relying on a "lapse" argument that the Constitution Bench has closed.