Delhi Development Authority vs Eminent Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Background
Land in Delhi was acquired under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with the award passed in 2008-09. The Delhi Development Authority's case was that physical possession of the land was taken on 27 September 2012 (a fact the writ petitioner itself pleaded and annexed possession proceedings for), that the entire compensation had been deposited in the Treasury, and that the writ petitioner was not even the recorded owner because the land vested in the Gaon Sabha. In December 2017 the Delhi High Court nevertheless declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act solely because compensation had not been paid to the petitioner, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed the DDA's appeal and dismissed the original writ petition. It pointed out that Pune Municipal Corporation was expressly overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal (2020), which held that the word "or" in Section 24(2) must be read as "nor"/"and": acquisition lapses only where the authorities have neither taken possession nor paid compensation for five years or more before 1 January 2014. Since possession had admittedly been taken in 2012, one of the two conditions was not met and there could be no lapse; deposit of compensation in the treasury rather than court, or non-payment alone, does not invalidate an acquisition. The High Court's judgment was therefore unsustainable.
Lesson Learnt
Under the 2013 land acquisition law, an old acquisition is deemed to have lapsed only if the government both failed to take possession and failed to pay compensation. If the land was already taken over, a landowner cannot claim lapse merely because money was not received. Judgments relying on the overruled Pune Municipal Corporation line no longer hold good.