Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs Khajan Singh & Anr.
Background
Land belonging to Khajan Singh and another owner in Delhi had been acquired under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Government took physical possession on specific dates recorded in its affidavit: a fact the landowners themselves admitted in their writ petition. The landowners nevertheless went to the Delhi High Court claiming the acquisition had "lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had never been paid or tendered to them. Relying on the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Solanki, the High Court agreed and declared the acquisition lapsed. The Delhi Government appealed.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order. It pointed out that the Pune Municipal Corporation decision the High Court relied upon was expressly overruled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020). Under that ruling, Section 24(2) causes an acquisition to lapse only when both conditions are met, possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid, for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force; the word "or" in the section must be read as "nor"/"and". Since possession was admittedly taken here, one of the twin conditions was missing, so there could be no lapse regardless of the compensation issue. The High Court's judgment was therefore held unsustainable.
Lesson Learnt
A landowner cannot claim an old acquisition has lapsed under the 2013 Act merely because compensation was not paid. If the government has already taken possession, the acquisition stands, and the remedy is to pursue the compensation, not to reopen the acquisition. Courts and litigants must apply the law as settled by the Constitution Bench, not earlier rulings that have since been overruled.