Section 24(2) lapse requires both non-payment of compensation and failure to take possession.

The petitioners claimed ownership through their predecessors of 4 acres 13 guntas in Survey No. 450, Hiremagaluru Village.

The land was included in a preliminary acquisition notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 12 January 1990, followed by a declaration under Section 6(1) dated 23 March 1991.

In 2017, the petitioners challenged a re-tender and work order for developing the park and sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Whether the acquisition of Survey No. 450 had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for failure to take possession and/or pay compensation.

Whether the petitioners could rely on the 1998 order and the Division Bench judgment concerning other landowners’ properties to challenge their own acquisition after substantial delay.

Whether the layout’s implementation—including sites, roads, a park and third-party interests—affected the relief sought.

Whether the 2017 re-tender notification and work order were liable to be quashed.

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as interpreted by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, requires both failure to take possession and failure to pay compensation, attributable to the acquiring authority, for the prescribed period before an acquisition lapses; non-deposit of compensation in court does not by itself cause lapse, and Section 24(2) does not revive stale challenges to concluded acquisitions.

Sections 16 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 govern vesting upon possession and payment or deposit of compensation, respectively.

Section 36 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 makes the 1894 Act applicable to compulsory acquisition for an Urban Development Authority.

The Court also applied the discretionary nature of Article 226 relief, having regard to delay, completed implementation and intervening third-party rights.

The Court found the entire compensation award of Rs. 2,14,952 accounted for: Rs. 1,49,100 attributable to Puttamma’s land was applied under a court-ordered garnishee process to satisfy a decree against her and members of her family, while the official record showed Rs. 65,852 paid to Rudre Gowda.

It also found possession established by the land’s incorporation into the layout, formation and allotment of sites, construction of houses, formation of a road and earmarking of the balance as a park; the missing original Section 16 notification did not outweigh this evidence.

Accordingly, the cumulative conditions for lapse under Section 24(2) were not met.

The 1998 decisions applied only to the lands before those courts, not the petitioners’ lands; the petitioners had known of the acquisition from 1992 but did not timely challenge it, and Section 24(2) could not revive that stale challenge.

As the acquisition remained effective, the deletion request had been rejected, and the park was part of the implemented layout, the petitioners established no basis to quash the tender or work order.

It dismissed the writ petition, rejected the prayers to quash the re-tender and work order and to declare the acquisition notifications lapsed, and dismissed I.A. No. 1/24.