Delhi Development Authority vs. Rambir and Ors.
Background
Land in Delhi had been acquired under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was the beneficiary. The landowners went to the Delhi High Court in 2017 asking it to declare that the acquisition had "lapsed" (become void) under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had never been actually handed to them. The High Court agreed, relying on the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, even though the DDA had specifically pleaded that possession of the land was taken and handed over to the user department back in 2007.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed the DDA's appeal and set aside the High Court's order. It pointed out that the Pune Municipal Corporation ruling the High Court relied on had been expressly overruled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020). Under Indore Development Authority, an acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) only when the authorities have neither taken possession nor paid compensation for five years or more before 1 January 2014: the word "or" in the section must be read as "nor"/"and". Since possession here was taken in 2007 by drawing up a panchnama (an official possession record) and handed to the beneficiary, one of the two conditions was satisfied and there could be no lapse. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
A landowner cannot claim that an old land acquisition has lapsed under the 2013 Act merely because compensation was not paid to them, if the government has already taken possession of the land. Both possession and payment must have been neglected for the "deemed lapse" rule to bite; a High Court cannot follow an overruled precedent.