M/S. Soorajmull Nagarmull v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Background
The State of Bihar first acquired the appellant's land in 1981 under the urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and took possession a few months later. In 1990 that very land was declared a "Protected Forest," and in 1995-96 the State started a second, fresh acquisition of the same land without explaining why the earlier acquisition had not been completed. The landowner successfully challenged the second round in the High Court, which found the State acted without proper application of mind, and after the 2013 land acquisition law came into force, the question arose whether the original acquisition itself had lapsed since the State never paid compensation or finished the process.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, the acquisition proceedings over the subject land had lapsed because neither possession nor compensation formalities had been completed as required. The Court discussed the interplay between Section 24(1)(a) and Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and the earlier precedent in Satendra Prasad Jain, noting that the State cannot benefit from its own failure to complete the acquisition process. It declared the acquisition proceedings lapsed and directed the State to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings, or take other lawful action, within six weeks. The appeals were allowed in these terms.
Lesson Learnt
When the government does not complete payment of compensation or taking of possession within the time required by law, a decades-old land acquisition can be declared legally lapsed, forcing the State to start the process over rather than rely on an incomplete old notification.