Union of India vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.
Background
The Delhi High Court had ruled that land acquisition proceedings for a parcel of land stood "deemed lapsed" under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation Act, because compensation had allegedly not been paid, relying on the earlier Supreme Court ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki. The Union of India, through its Land Acquisition Collector, challenged this before the Supreme Court, pointing out that the original writ petitioner himself had admitted that possession of the land had already been taken back in 1997.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted that the Pune Municipal Corporation precedent relied upon by the High Court had since been overruled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020). That Constitution Bench clarified that the word "or" in Section 24(2), between "possession" and "compensation", must be read as "nor"/"and", meaning a deemed lapse occurs only if BOTH possession has not been taken AND compensation has not been paid. Since it was undisputed that possession of the land had already been taken in 1997, there could be no deemed lapse merely because compensation was allegedly unpaid. The High Court's order was quashed, the writ petition was dismissed, and the appeal was allowed.
Lesson Learnt
Under the 2013 land acquisition law, a landowner cannot claim that old acquisition proceedings have automatically lapsed just because compensation wasn't paid: the lapse only kicks in if the government failed on both counts, i.e., neither took possession nor paid compensation, for five years or more before the law came into force.