Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs Jai Pal
Background
Land belonging to the respondent, Jai Pal, had been acquired by the Delhi government under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Delhi High Court ruled that this acquisition had "lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the newer 2013 land acquisition law, on the ground that compensation had not been paid, relying on a 2014 Supreme Court decision (Pune Municipal Corporation). The Delhi government appealed, pointing out that it had claimed possession of the land was actually taken back in 2008, and that the legal precedent the High Court relied on had since been overturned.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment relied on by the High Court had been expressly overruled by a later, larger five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal (2020), which clarified that a land acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) only if both possession has not been taken AND compensation has not been paid, not if either one alone is missing. Since the Delhi government maintained that possession of the land had already been taken in 2008, there could be no automatic "lapse" merely because compensation was allegedly unpaid. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the original writ petition, holding there was no deemed lapse of the acquisition.
Lesson Learnt
Under the 2013 land acquisition law, an old acquisition only "lapses" if the government failed on both fronts, neither taking possession nor paying compensation, for five years or more; if the government took possession of the land, non-payment of compensation alone will not undo the acquisition.