Section 24(2) of 2013 Act cannot revive stale acquisition claims where possession was taken and compensation enhanced.

The Petitioner owned land admeasuring 10 Bighas and 07 Biswas in Village Masoodpur, New Delhi

Acquisition proceedings commenced under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with notifications issued in 1965 and 1968, culminating in Award No. 90/(80-81) dated December 22, 1980

The Petitioner filed the present writ in 2015 seeking a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act), alleging that possession was never taken and compensation was not paid

Respondents 2 and 3 countered that possession was handed over to the DDA on December 29, 1980

compensation was deposited with the Land Building Department

Notably, the Petitioner had suppressed a previous unsuccessful challenge to the acquisition in 1981 and had already obtained a decree for enhanced compensation from a Reference Court in 2006

1. Whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to alleged non-payment of compensation and failure to take physical possession

2. Whether the petition was maintainable despite the suppression of material facts regarding prior litigation and the impact of delay and laches

The court primarily applied Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which provides for the lapse of acquisition if possession is not taken or compensation is not paid

It relied heavily on the Constitutional Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal Ors. (2020), which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation (2014) and established that "lapshing" occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid

The court further applied the principle from Mahavir Ors v. Union of India (2018), which holds that Section 24(2) cannot be invoked to revive "dead or stale claims" where the landowner has sat on their rights for decades or where acquisition had attained finality

The court found the Petitioner’s claims factually meritless based on official records. A Possession Receipt dated December 29, 1980, categorically proved that the state had taken possession decades ago

The court noted that the Petitioner’s participation in Section 18 reference proceedings, resulting in a 2006 decree for enhanced compensation, fundamentally contradicted the claim of non-payment and proved knowledge of the acquisition

Applying Indore Development Authority, the court held that since possession was taken and compensation was adjudicated (and tendered), the statutory fiction of "lapsing" under the 2013 Act could not be triggered

Furthermore, the court condemned the Petitioner for "suppression of material facts" regarding the 1981 writ petition and determined that a challenge initiated in 2015 against a 1980 Award was barred by "delay and laches," as Section 24(2) is not intended to revive stale claims where development has often already occurred

The court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the Petitioner failed to satisfy the twin requirements of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The court specifically held that the claim was "dead and stale" and that the Petitioner’s conduct in suppressing prior litigation disentitled him to discretionary relief. All pending applications were disposed of.