Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
Background
Land in Village Molarband, Delhi was notified for acquisition by the Land Acquisition Collector way back in 1964, an award was passed in 1981, and physical possession was taken over and handed to the Delhi Development Authority in 1997. The original landowners later filed a writ petition arguing that, since compensation had never actually been paid to them, the acquisition should be treated as having lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Delhi High Court agreed, relying on the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, and declared the acquisition lapsed.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation was no longer good law, since a five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) had expressly overruled it. Under the Constitution Bench's ruling, the word "or" in Section 24(2) between "possession" and "compensation" must be read as "nor"/"and", meaning a lapse occurs only if the government has failed to do both, i.e., neither taken possession nor paid compensation, for five years or more. Here, the government had already taken physical possession in 1997 and handed it to the DDA, so even though compensation remained unpaid, there was no lapse. The High Court's judgment was therefore quashed and the government's appeal was allowed.
Lesson Learnt
Under the land acquisition "deemed lapse" rule, non-payment of compensation alone does not revive or undo an old acquisition if the government had already taken physical possession of the land, both possession and compensation must be missing for five years or more before a landowner can claim the acquisition has lapsed.