Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. vs. Dinesh Kumar & Anr.
Background
The Delhi High Court had allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent landowner, declaring that acquisition proceedings over his land had "lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act because compensation had not been paid. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that possession of the land had already been taken over on 31.12.2013, before the new Act came into force on 1.1.2014: through a "punchnama" (a formal possession-taking document), so the deeming provision could not apply. The landowner argued only "paper possession," not actual physical possession, had been taken, and that compensation was never paid.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that under its earlier ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, a deemed lapse under Section 24(2) requires BOTH conditions to be met: possession must not have been taken AND compensation must not have been paid. Since a punchnama is a legally valid mode of taking possession, and possession here had already been taken via punchnama before the 2013 Act came into force, only one of the two conditions (non-payment of compensation) was satisfied, which is not enough to trigger a lapse. The High Court's reasoning was found contrary to the Indore Development Authority precedent, so its judgment was quashed and the appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
For land acquired under the old law but with proceedings still pending when the 2013 Act took over, a landowner cannot claim the acquisition has lapsed merely because compensation was delayed. If the government already took possession (even via a documented punchnama rather than literal physical occupation), that alone defeats a deemed-lapse claim.