Revenue entries based on lapsed acquisition must be corrected despite claims of possession by the beneficiary.

The Petitioner purchased 12 bighas and 7 biswas of land in Village Bharthal via a registered sale deed in 1985

In 1988, the land was notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the expansion of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL)

Possession proceedings (kabza karwahi) were recorded on May 16, 1988

In 2006, a Division Bench quashed the Section 6 declaration for lack of independent application of mind regarding urgency provisions

Subsequently, in 2014, another Division Bench in W.P.(C) 5944/2013 declared that the entire acquisition proceedings had lapsed because no fresh Section 6 declaration was issued within the statutory period

Despite this, the District Magistrate, by order dated August 3, 2023, rejected the Petitioner's request to correct revenue entries, relying on the 1988 possession report and a 1999 mutation in favor of BPCL

The Court applied the principle from Padmasundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, which mandates that the failure to issue a Section 6 declaration within statutory timelines results in the lapse of acquisition proceedings

It further relied on Gojer Brothers Private Limited v. State of West Bengal and Baldev Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector, establishing that once an acquisition lapses, the beneficiary cannot retain the land solely on the strength of that lapsed process, and revenue records must be corrected

The Court also clarified that revenue entries under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 do not confer title but are maintained for fiscal/administrative purposes and should reflect "lawful possession"

The Court reasoned that a possession proceeding (kabza karwahi) is not an independent instrument of transfer but derives its legality entirely from the acquisition it serves

Once the 2014 judgment declared the "entire acquisition proceedings" lapsed, the legal foundation for recording BPCL or the State as the owner vanished

The District Magistrate committed a jurisdictional error by treating the 1988 possession report as an independent source of title that could override a binding judicial declaration

Furthermore, the Court noted a contradiction in the District Magistrate's order: he ignored a 2022 field report showing the land was outside BPCL’s boundary wall, yet concluded BPCL's possession was "undisputed"

While BPCL raised safety concerns regarding its fuel terminal, the Court held that a lapsed acquisition cannot be used as a permanent shield against correcting records; the State remains free to initiate fresh, lawful acquisition if necessary

It directed Respondents 1 and 2 to correct the revenue records within eight weeks by removing BPCL/State entries and restoring the status quo ante the acquisition

The Court held that while the revenue record must be corrected, this order is not a direction for the delivery of physical possession, and the question of actual physical control remains open for adjudication in appropriate civil proceedings. To prevent forcible dispossession, the Court extended interim protection to the Petitioner for 60 days.