Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs. Sudesh Verma & Anr.
Background
The Delhi High Court had declared that land acquisition proceedings under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law, relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Pune Municipal Corporation) that said acquisitions lapse if possession was not taken or compensation not paid for five years. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed. The government's case was that possession could not be taken earlier only because the original landowners themselves had been contesting the acquisition in court, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and lost.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's ruling. It held that the Pune Municipal Corporation decision the High Court relied on had since been overruled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020), which clarified that a "lapse" under Section 24(2) requires proof that authorities were inactive, but delays caused by the landowners' own litigation must be excluded from that five-year period, and once possession is taken there is no revival of the acquisition. Since the landowners here had themselves prolonged the litigation and ultimately lost, they could not now claim the acquisition lapsed because possession was delayed by their own challenge.
Lesson Learnt
A landowner who tied up a land acquisition in years of litigation, and lost, cannot later claim the acquisition itself lapsed because the government could not take possession during that very litigation. Courts will not let a party benefit from delay it caused.