Delhi Development Authority vs. Surender Singh & Ors.
Background
In four separate but similar land acquisitions in Delhi (for the Rohini Residential Scheme, Ghonda Gujran Khadar, Tughlakabad, and Madan Pur Khadar), landowners approached the Delhi High Court claiming their acquisitions had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act because neither possession had been taken nor compensation paid within five years. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA)/Government maintained that possession had in fact been taken and handed over for planned development, even though compensation in some cases could not be paid due to title disputes or claimants not coming forward. Relying on the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation, the High Court had held in each case that the acquisitions lapsed since compensation was not paid.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that its Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) had specifically overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, clarifying that satisfaction of either condition, taking possession OR paying compensation, is sufficient to prevent a lapse under Section 24(2); the word "or" must be read as "nor"/"and," meaning a lapse occurs only when BOTH possession has not been taken AND compensation has not been paid. Since it was undisputed on the record that possession of the land had been taken over and handed to the DDA in all four matters, one of the two conditions was satisfied, and the acquisitions could not be treated as lapsed. The Court set aside the High Court's orders in all four appeals and dismissed the original writ petitions filed by the landowners.
Lesson Learnt
Following the Constitution Bench's 2020 ruling in Indore Development Authority, a land acquisition under the old law does not lapse merely because compensation was not paid, so long as the government actually took possession of the land: landowners challenging old acquisitions need to check both conditions, not just the compensation issue.