Land Acquisition Collector (South East) vs. Dharamvir & Ors.
Background
The Delhi High Court had declared land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law, even though it was submitted before it that possession of the land had been taken as early as 16.03.2004. The High Court relied solely on the fact that compensation had not been paid, following the Pune Municipal Corporation precedent, and allowed the landowners' writ petition.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held the High Court's reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation was misplaced, since that decision had been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020), which held that once possession has been taken, land acquisition proceedings cannot be treated as lapsed under Section 24(2) merely because compensation was not separately paid or deposited. As possession here had admittedly been taken in 2004, the acquisition could not have lapsed. The High Court's judgment was quashed and set aside, and the original writ petition filed by the landowners was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
For land acquired under the old 1894 Act, once the government has actually taken possession of the land, the acquisition does not lapse merely because compensation was not separately paid: possession and payment are treated together, but possession already taken defeats a later claim of lapse.