Land Acquisition Collector vs. Jai Prakash Tyagi & Ors.
Background
Land measuring about 15 bighas 18 biswa in village Wazirabad (Delhi) had been acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector. The landowners went to the Delhi High Court arguing that since possession of parts of the land had not been taken and compensation not paid for a long period, the acquisition should be treated as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act (the Right to Fair Compensation Act). The High Court agreed and declared the whole acquisition lapsed, relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision, Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki. The Land Acquisition Collector appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that the Pune Municipal Corporation ruling relied on by the High Court had since been overruled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020). Under the law as now settled, a deemed lapse under Section 24(2) occurs only where authorities failed to both take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before 1 January 2014, and if either possession was taken or compensation was tendered, there is no lapse, even if the other formality was incomplete. Applying this corrected legal position, the Court held the High Court's blanket finding of lapse over the entire land was unsustainable, quashed the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the original writ petition. It clarified, however, that landowners who were never actually paid compensation could still pursue their claim for payment under the ordinary provisions of the 1894 Act.
Lesson Learnt
A change in the law by a larger Constitution Bench can reopen and reverse outcomes that were decided based on a since-overruled precedent; and for land acquisition specifically, a deemed "lapse" of acquisition requires failure on both fronts, no possession taken and no compensation paid, not just one.