Land Acquisition Proceedings Concluded Under the 1894 Act Do Not Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

The petitioners’ land in Village Asarma, Surat, was acquired for the Hazira Water Project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An award was published on June 26, 1990

The petitioners filed a reference for higher compensation under Section 18 of the 1894 Act in 1993, which remained pending

The petitioners approached the High Court in 2017 seeking a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, asserting they remained in possession and that a neighboring plot had received a similar favorable declaration in 2016

respondent records indicated that possession was taken in 1995 and compensation was tendered after the award

1. Whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, despite the award being passed and possession taken decades prior to the Act’s commencement.

2. Whether Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act can be invoked to revive stale or concluded claims where the landowner has already sought a reference for higher compensation.

The Court applied the Law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129], which interpreted Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act

The rule establishes that "lapse" occurs only if neither possession has been taken nor compensation paid; if either condition is met, there is no lapse

"paid" include tendering compensation under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, and the mode of taking possession is validated by the drawing of an inquest report/memorandum

Section 24(2) does not revive stale or concluded proceedings or provide a new cause of action for time-barred claims

The Court reasoned that the acquisition proceedings were logically concluded long before the 2013 Act came into force on January 1, 2014. Evidence showed the award was declared in 1990 and possession was taken in 1995

The petitioners had acknowledged the finality of the acquisition by receiving the award copy in 1992 and filing a Reference for enhanced compensation under Section 18 in 1993

Following the Indore Development Authority ratio, the Court found that because the obligation to pay was fulfilled by tendering the amount and possession was taken (notwithstanding the petitioners' claims of physical occupancy), the proceedings did not lapse

The Court emphasized that Section 24(2) cannot be used as a tool to reopen concluded or stale matters from the 1990s

The petition was dismissed, clarifying that previous contrary positions of the High Court were overruled by the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority. No order as to costs was made