Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Jai Kishan Goel and Ors.
Background
The Delhi Development Authority had initiated land acquisition which the appellant corporation sought to rely on, but the land owner (Jai Kishan Goel) resisted on the ground that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law for want of timely possession or compensation payment. The same legal issue had already been decided against the requisitioning authority (Delhi Development Authority) in two earlier Supreme Court appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 8477 of 2016 and 5811 of 2015), which had been dismissed.
Decision Breakdown
The Court held that this appeal was squarely covered by its own prior rulings on the identical point and accordingly dismissed it, applying the precedent set in the earlier dismissed appeals. However, taking into account the peculiar facts, the Court granted the appellant corporation a one-year window to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act. It further clarified that if no fresh notification issued within that year, the corporation, if in possession, would have to return physical possession of the land to the original owner.
Lesson Learnt
Where a land acquisition process is found to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquiring authority does not automatically lose the land forever: courts may grant a limited window to restart acquisition afresh, but possession must be restored to the original owner if that window is missed.