Land and Building Department Through Secretary & Anr. vs. Attro Devi & Ors.
Background
Land in Delhi was acquired in 1989-1990 for planned development, with the compensation award announced in 1992. The respondent landowners later obtained a Delhi High Court ruling that the acquisition had "lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act because compensation had not been paid to them, relying on the then-prevailing Supreme Court precedent (Pune Municipal Corporation) that required both possession to be taken AND compensation to be paid to avoid lapse. The government appealed, pointing out that its possession of the land had in fact been taken in 2012 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority, and that a later Constitution Bench ruling (Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal) had overruled Pune Municipal Corporation, holding that satisfying either one of the two conditions (possession OR compensation) was enough to save an acquisition from lapsing. The land was also now needed for a national highway project (part of Bharatmala Pariyojana).
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court applied the Constitution Bench's Indore Development Authority ruling, under which satisfying just one of the two conditions, taking possession or paying compensation, is sufficient to prevent a deemed lapse under Section 24(2). Since it was undisputed on record that the government had taken possession of the land in 2012 (evidenced by a possession report) and handed it to the DDA, that condition alone was enough, and the government did not need to have also paid compensation to avoid lapse. The High Court's contrary ruling, based on the now-overruled Pune Municipal Corporation standard, could not be sustained and was set aside. The Court did direct that the landowners remain entitled to receive their due compensation.
Lesson Learnt
In land acquisition disputes, once the government has taken actual possession of acquired land, the acquisition does not lapse merely because compensation has not yet been paid: landowners in that situation must still pursue payment of their compensation, but cannot use non-payment alone to have the entire acquisition undone.