Delhi Development Authority vs. Shyamo & Ors.
Background
Land in Village Ghonda Gujaran Khadar, Delhi, was notified for acquisition on 23 September 1989 for the planned development of Delhi; the award was made on 19 June 1992 and, according to the Land Acquisition Collector, actual vacant physical possession was taken on 21 March 2007 and handed over to the DDA after preparing possession proceedings on the spot. The recorded owners never came forward to collect compensation, so it lay unpaid. The writ petitioner, who claimed a 1/12th share in the land but was not the recorded owner, went to the Delhi High Court in 2015, which (following its own decision in Gyanender Singh, itself based on Pune Municipal Corporation) declared the acquisition lapsed on 20 December 2017 because compensation had not been tendered to the petitioner, without ever deciding whether the petitioner actually owned the land.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed the DDA's appeal and dismissed the original writ petition. It held that Pune Municipal Corporation was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020), under which there is no lapse where possession has been taken, and here possession was taken by drawing a panchnama and handed to the DDA. Since the petitioner was not the recorded owner, there was no question of compensation having to be tendered to him at the relevant time. The Court further held that the High Court was not justified in entertaining a writ petition without first deciding the petitioner's ownership and title: a person must first establish title before being allowed to challenge an acquisition or claim it has lapsed. The High Court's order was quashed, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
You must prove that you actually own the land before a court will let you challenge its acquisition; and even a genuine owner cannot claim "lapse" under the 2013 Act where the government has already taken possession, merely because compensation is lying uncollected.