Delhi Development Authority vs Raj Singh & Anr.
Background
Land was acquired by the Delhi Development Authority under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with the DDA claiming it had released Rs. 10 crore for the acquired land's compensation back in 1990 and that possession was taken in 2006. The landowner, however, filed a writ petition arguing that records showed compensation was never actually paid to him, and the Delhi High Court agreed, declaring the acquisition "deemed to have lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the newer 2013 Land Acquisition Act: a provision that revives old acquisitions where neither possession was taken nor compensation paid for five years or more before the new Act came into force.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held the High Court's ruling could not stand in light of a binding five-judge Constitution Bench decision (Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal), which had settled that the word "or" in Section 24(2) must be read as "nor"/"and", meaning an acquisition lapses only if BOTH possession was not taken AND compensation was not paid for five years. Since the High Court's own finding was that possession had been taken (in 2006), the acquisition could not be treated as lapsed merely because payment records were unclear, and non-deposit of compensation in court does not by itself cause a lapse. The Court quashed the High Court's order and dismissed the original writ petition, upholding the acquisition.
Lesson Learnt
Under the current legal position, an old land acquisition is deemed to have lapsed only where the authorities failed on both fronts, neither took possession nor paid compensation, for five years or more; if either one was done, the acquisition survives even if records on the other are incomplete.