North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Ram Chander Singh & Ors.
Background
Land in village Chowkri Mubarakbad, Delhi, was acquired under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894: the notification was issued in 1959 and the award passed in 1964. The Government said it took physical possession on 1 May 1964 and deposited the compensation first with the Reference Court and then, in 1967, in the Treasury. Decades later, people claiming to be successors of a recorded owner filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court arguing that because compensation was never actually paid to the owners and possession was never taken, the acquisition had "lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The High Court agreed, relying on the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed the Municipal Corporation's appeal and set aside the High Court's order. It held that the High Court had no good reason to disbelieve the Government's specific case that possession was taken in 1964; the writ petitioners had never even claimed to have built the boundary wall the High Court relied on. More fundamentally, the Pune Municipal Corporation ruling had been overruled by the five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal (2020), which held that a deemed lapse occurs only when BOTH possession has not been taken AND compensation has not been paid: the "or" in Section 24(2) must be read as "and". Since possession had been taken here, there could be no lapse; and depositing compensation in the Treasury instead of court does not by itself invalidate an acquisition. The Court left it open to the writ petitioners to pursue any genuine grievance about unpaid compensation in accordance with law.
Lesson Learnt
An old land acquisition does not automatically "lapse" merely because compensation was never received. If the State took possession, the acquisition stands, and the remedy is to claim the compensation, not to try to reclaim the land. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be used to reopen acquisitions concluded decades ago.