Delhi Development Authority vs Rajender Singh & Ors.
Background
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had acquired certain lands and, according to its affidavit before the Delhi High Court, took possession and handed the land to the beneficiary department on 23 September 1981; the compensation was sent to the Revenue Deposit account because of a dispute over who should receive it. Landowners later filed a writ petition claiming the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had never been paid to them "in the manner known to law". The High Court, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014), declared the acquisition lapsed on that ground alone.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed DDA's appeal and set aside the High Court's declaration. It held that the High Court's view was directly contrary to the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal (2020), which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation. Under that ruling, a deemed lapse requires two conditions together: possession has not been taken AND compensation has not been paid/tendered. If even one condition is not met, there is no lapse. Since possession had admittedly been taken in 1981, the non-payment of compensation could not cause the acquisition to lapse. The Court declared there would be no deemed lapse of the acquisition.
Lesson Learnt
Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, a land acquisition lapses only when the authorities have neither taken possession nor paid compensation, failing on just one of these is not enough. Landowners in such situations should pursue the compensation owed to them rather than seek to undo the acquisition.