Land acquisition under the 1894 Act lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession remains with the owner and compensation is unpaid.

The petitioner’s parents purchased land in Khasra Nos. 724 & 725, Village Nausar, Ajmer via registered sale deed in 1978

Acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were initiated in 1995 for the "Hari Bhau Vistaar Yojana," culminating in an award dated 31.12.1998

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 05.02.2021 and an order dated 15.07.2021 issued under Section 67(3) of the Ajmer Development Authority (ADA) Act, 2013, which treated the land as Government property and sought to remove the petitioner as an encroacher

The petitioner contended that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as physical possession remained with him and compensation was never paid prior to 2014

1. Whether the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894 lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

2. Whether the Ajmer Development Authority had the jurisdiction to issue eviction notices under Section 67 of the ADA Act, 2013, in light of the status of the acquisition

The court primarily applied Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which provides for the lapse of acquisition proceedings if an award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act but possession was not taken or compensation was not paid

It relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Others (2020), which clarified that "or" in Section 24(2) must be read as "nor," meaning lapse occurs only if both conditions (non-payment of compensation and failure to take physical possession) coexist

For the mode of taking possession, the court applied principles from Banda Development Authority v. Moti Lal Agrawal (2011)

The court found that since the award was passed in 1998, the five-year threshold under Section 24(2) was met by the 01.01.2014 commencement date

Regarding compensation, the court noted from the Authority's own minutes dated 13.12.2017 that no compensation had been paid or deposited

The respondents’ admission that they deposited compensation in court only on 29.10.2021—nearly eight years after the 2013 Act's commencement—confirmed non-payment as of the relevant date

Regarding possession, the petitioner provided electricity bills, tax receipts, and house photographs, whereas the respondents failed to produce a possession memo or panchnama

Applying Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, the court drew an adverse inference against the respondents for failing to produce primary records of possession

Since both non-payment and lack of physical possession coexisted on 01.01.2014, the acquisition was held to have lapsed

Consequently, the impugned notice dated 05.02.2021 and order dated 15.07.2021 issued under the ADA Act were quashed as being illegal and without jurisdiction, as the land could no longer be treated as Government property

The relief under Article 300A was upheld to protect the petitioner’s property rights