National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors. vs Subhash Chander Khatri & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1987 of 2023)
Background
The Delhi High Court had earlier declared that a land acquisition proceeding against the respondent's land had "lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because compensation had not been paid, even though the Department had already taken possession of the land and put it to use, and even the landowner had accepted this. The High Court still directed that the landowner be paid compensation under the newer 2013 Act. The NCT of Delhi appealed to the Supreme Court against this finding of "deemed lapse."
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court applied its own earlier Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal (2020), which clarified that under Section 24(2), a "deemed lapse" of acquisition occurs only where authorities failed to both take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before 2014. If either possession was taken or compensation paid, there is no lapse. Since it was undisputed that possession of the land had already been taken and the land put to use by the Department before the 2013 Act came into force, there could be no deemed lapse merely because compensation had not been paid. The Court therefore held the High Court's judgment unsustainable, quashed it, and dismissed the original writ petition, allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Under the 2013 land acquisition law, an old acquisition does not automatically "lapse" for non-payment of compensation alone. If the government had already taken possession of the land before the new law came into force, the acquisition stands and the landowner cannot claim it lapsed simply because compensation was delayed.