Delhi Development Authority vs. Rajesh Dua and Ors.
Background
The land in question was acquired in 1964 and the compensation award was made in 1967. According to the Land Acquisition Collector, possession was taken in 1967 by drawing up a panchnama and the compensation was deposited with the Reference Court that same year. Fifty years later, in 2017, the respondents filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court claiming the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation was never actually paid to the landowners. The High Court, following its own earlier decision in Harbans Kaur (which in turn relied on the Supreme Court's Pune Municipal Corporation ruling of 2014), held that depositing money in court is not "payment" and declared the acquisition lapsed, also finding that physical possession had not been taken.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed the DDA's appeal. It held that the Pune Municipal Corporation decision underpinning the High Court's reasoning was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020), which settled that lapse occurs only when both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Taking possession by drawing a panchnama is a valid mode of possession under that ruling. The Court also stressed that compensation was deposited in the Reference Court in 1967 and that for fifty years (1967 to 2017) there was nothing on record to show the landowners ever complained about non-payment. On these facts the High Court's declaration of lapse was unsustainable and was set aside, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not revive decades-old, concluded acquisitions; if the government took possession and deposited compensation in court long ago and nobody objected for fifty years, a landowner cannot use the new law to undo the acquisition.