Delhi Development Authority vs. Chandermal & Ors.
Background
Land belonging to the respondents was acquired long ago, with the Section 4 notification issued in 1964 and the compensation award declared in 1997; possession was recorded as handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 26.05.1998. The original landowners later challenged the acquisition before the Delhi High Court, arguing it should be treated as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had never actually been paid to them. The High Court agreed and declared the acquisition lapsed, even though it accepted that possession had been taken over by the authorities. The DDA and the Delhi government appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach was directly contrary to the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020), which clarified that under Section 24(2) the word "or" between possession and compensation must be read as "nor"/"and", meaning a lapse occurs only where BOTH possession was not taken AND compensation was not paid for five years or more. Since the possession certificate dated 26.05.1998 showed possession had already been taken over, non-payment of compensation alone could not trigger a lapse. The Court also rejected the landowners' technical objection to the wording of the possession certificate, noting they had never disputed the taking of possession before the High Court and could not raise it belatedly. The High Court's judgment was quashed and the appeals were allowed, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Under the 2013 land acquisition law, an old acquisition is deemed lapsed only if the government failed on BOTH counts, neither took possession nor paid compensation, for five years or more before 1 January 2014; non-payment of compensation alone, once possession is lawfully taken, does not revive or invalidate a completed acquisition.