Concluded land acquisition proceedings cannot be reopened under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 to claim developed land.

Land in Village Chainpura was acquired by the State for the expansion of Jaipur Airport via notifications issued in 1969 and 1973 under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953

An award was passed on 17.05.1975, and compensation was deposited in the Reference Court as the khatedars refused to accept it

Multiple rounds of litigation challenging the acquisition (1974, 1975, 2010, 2015, 2022) were dismissed by the High Court and Supreme Court

The respondents filed fresh writ petitions in 2023 seeking allotment of 25% developed land in lieu of compensation based on a 2020 government policy

A Single Judge allowed the petitions on 07.03.2026, directing the allotment

1. Whether the writ petitioners were entitled to claim 25% developed land under subsequent government policies despite several rounds of concluded litigation and the vesting of land in the State decades prior

2. Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

The court primarily applied the principle of res judicata and the "lapse" doctrine under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 as interpreted in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129

The rule establishes that if either physical possession of the land has been taken or compensation has been paid/tendered, the acquisition does not lapse

Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (and its state counterpart) provides that once an award is made and possession is taken, the land vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances

The court also relied on Udyami Evam Evan Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of UP regarding the prohibition of multiple legal proceedings for the same cause of action, categorizing it as an abuse of process

The Court observed that the respondents were engaging in "frivolous litigation" by filing successive petitions after losing multiple legal battles over the same land since 1974

Applying Indore Development Authority, the Bench noted that since compensation was deposited in the Reference Court in 1979/1999 and physical possession was established—affirmed by the removal of encroachments in 2017—the acquisition was fully concluded and the land had vested in the JDA

The Court reasoned that Section 24 of the 2013 Act does not revive stale or time-barred claims nor does it allow for the reopening of concluded proceedings

The Bench found that the 2020 policy for developed land was inapplicable because the original dispute was already settled, and the respondents had never sought a reference for enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the old Act

The Division Bench held that the Single Judge committed a serious error in ignoring the history of failed litigations and established legal principles regarding Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act; consequently, the D.B. Special Appeals were allowed, the orders dated 07.03.2026 were set aside, and the original writ petitions were dismissed.