Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs. Dayanand & Anr.
Background
Land belonging to the respondent had been acquired by the Delhi government under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector's records showed that possession of 19 out of 20 biswas of the land had been taken in 2009 (the remaining 1 biswa could not be taken because it was built-up), and that a compensation notice had been sent to the landowner by registered post, but since he did not come to collect it, the amount was deposited in the government's revenue deposit. The respondent later filed a writ petition claiming that, since compensation was never actually "paid" to him and part of the land's possession was never taken, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Delhi High Court agreed and declared the acquisition lapsed, prompting the government's appeal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court applied the settled law from its five-judge Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority, which held that Section 24(2)'s "or" between possession and compensation must be read as "nor"/"and", meaning a lapse occurs only if BOTH possession was not taken AND compensation was not paid for five years or more; if either one happened, there is no lapse. It also held that once compensation has been validly tendered under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, a landowner cannot claim lapse merely because he refused or failed to collect it. Applying this, since the major portion of the land's possession had already been taken through a possession proceeding in 2009, and compensation had been duly tendered by registered notice (with the landowner simply not showing up to collect it), there was no deemed lapse. The Court held the landowner could not benefit from his own conduct of not collecting the compensation, set aside the High Court's ruling, and dismissed the original writ petition.
Lesson Learnt
A landowner cannot claim that a land acquisition has "lapsed" for non-payment of compensation if the government validly tendered the compensation and it was the landowner's own failure to collect it that led to its deposit elsewhere. The law does not let a party profit from their own inaction.