Delhi Development Authority vs Om Prakash (Dead) Through LRs & Ors.
Background
The Delhi land in question was notified for acquisition under the 1894 Act as far back as January 1965; the award was passed in January 1981 and, according to the Delhi government, possession was taken and handed over to the beneficiary department in September 1981. Whether compensation had been paid could not be verified because the relevant revenue record (the "Naksha Muntzamin") was torn. About 24 years after the award, once the 2013 Act came into force, the landowners' heirs filed a writ petition in 2014 claiming the acquisition had lapsed because full compensation was never tendered. In July 2017 the Delhi High Court accepted this and declared the acquisition lapsed to the extent of the petitioners' share.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed the Delhi government's appeal and set aside the High Court's order, disposing of the DDA's connected appeal in the same terms. It applied the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal (2020): lapse under Section 24(2) requires the twin conditions that possession was not taken and compensation was not paid; if either one is satisfied, there is no lapse. Since possession had been taken in 1981, the acquisition could not lapse regardless of the uncertainty about compensation. The Court also noted that no grievance about non-payment had been raised at any time in the 24 years before the writ petition, and that Section 24(2) does not revive stale claims or reopen concluded acquisitions.
Lesson Learnt
Once the government has taken possession of acquired land, the acquisition does not lapse under the 2013 Act merely because payment of compensation cannot be proved; the remedy, if any, is to claim the compensation, not to reclaim the land. Decades-old acquisitions cannot be reopened through Section 24(2).