Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Shiv Dutt Sharma
Background
The respondent's land had been the subject of an old acquisition. The Delhi High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, held that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been paid or tendered to the landowner, even though the High Court itself recorded a specific finding that possession of the land had already been taken over by the authorities. The Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority appealed against this finding.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that the very decision the High Court had relied upon, Pune Municipal Corporation, had since been expressly overruled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020), which clarified that Section 24(2) causes a "lapse" only where the authorities have failed to take possession AND failed to pay compensation for five years or more (the word "or" between possession and compensation must be read as "nor"/"and"). Since the High Court's own finding was that possession had been taken, non-payment of compensation alone could not cause a lapse under the corrected legal position. The Court held the High Court's judgment unsustainable in light of Indore Development Authority, quashed it, and allowed the appeals, while leaving any separate issue about regularising encroachments on the land to be decided by the appropriate forum.
Lesson Learnt
Under the amended land acquisition law, a landowner cannot claim that acquisition has automatically lapsed merely because compensation was not paid, if the government had already taken possession of the land, both possession and compensation must be simultaneously absent for five years or more; courts must also apply the currently good law, not an interim precedent that has since been overruled by a larger bench.