Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Jagjit Singh
Background
The Delhi Government had acquired land years earlier under an award passed under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. When the new 2013 Act came into force, affected landowners/residents' associations (Jagjit Singh and others, including a residents' welfare society) argued before the Delhi High Court that since neither possession had been taken nor compensation paid for more than five years before the new Act commenced, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The High Court agreed and declared the acquisitions lapsed; the Government then appealed to the Supreme Court in several connected appeals, including this one.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal position (from its own earlier rulings including Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki) that a Section 24(2) lapse requires establishing: (a) that the Award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was passed at least five years before 1 January 2014, and (b) that either compensation was not paid or possession was not taken. The Court also noted and endorsed its recent ruling in Radiance Fincap that a 2014 Ordinance purporting to protect such acquisitions where possession was blocked by interim court orders could only operate prospectively, not retrospectively, and so could not save these older acquisitions. Finding that the Delhi High Court had correctly determined, on facts, that possession had not been taken and compensation had not been paid, the Supreme Court held the statutory protection under Section 24(2) applied and dismissed all the connected appeals, upholding the lapse of the land acquisition proceedings.
Lesson Learnt
If the government does not take possession of acquired land or pay compensation for over five years before the 2013 land acquisition law took effect, the original acquisition is legally deemed to have lapsed, and a later government ordinance cannot retroactively revive or protect such a lapsed acquisition.