Section 24 does not revive decades-old acquisition proceedings where an award was passed.

The petitioner owned Survey No. 644/1, measuring 0.48 hectare, at Village Naya Baradwar, adjoining National Highway No. 200, now National Highway No. 49.

A demarcation conducted pursuant to an earlier writ petition revealed that 79 × 23 feet, equivalent to 1,817 sq. ft., of the petitioner’s land had been used for widening the National Highway.

The authorities produced notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 6 January 1967 and 16 June 1967, respectively.

However, the acquisition record was stated to be unavailable, and no documentary proof of the award was produced.

The Executive Engineer rejected the petitioner’s claim on 13 November 2017, holding that the land had already been acquired in 1967.

The petitioner challenged that order and sought fresh acquisition proceedings and compensation under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated through the 1967 notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had lapsed or become ineffective due to the alleged absence of proof of an award and non-payment of compensation?

Whether the authorities could be directed to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings and pay compensation for the 1,817 sq. ft. portion used in widening the National Highway?

The Court applied Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning the preliminary notification and declaration for acquisition, and Section 24 of the 2013 Act concerning the effect of pending acquisition proceedings under the repealed 1894 Act.

Relying on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, particularly paragraph 366.3, the Court held that acquisition does not lapse merely because compensation has not been paid where possession has been taken; likewise, it does not lapse where compensation has been paid but possession has not been taken.

The Court further proceeded on the basis that an award had been passed in 1967 and that possession was ultimately taken by the authorities in 2018.

The demarcation report established that a defined portion of the petitioner’s land had been used for highway widening.

Nevertheless, the Court found that the acquisition process had originated in 1967 through valid notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act.

Although the original acquisition record and documentary proof of the award were unavailable, the Court accepted the authorities’ position that an award had been passed and treated the acquisition as subsisting.

Applying Indore Development Authority, the Court held that the absence of proof of payment of compensation, by itself, did not result in lapse once possession had been taken.

Since the authorities had taken possession of the land in 2018, the petitioner could not claim that the acquisition had lapsed or demand reacquisition under the 2013 Act.

It held that the 1967 acquisition had not lapsed merely because compensation was allegedly unpaid and that fresh acquisition proceedings were not warranted.

The challenge to the order dated 13 November 2017 was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed, with no direction for fresh acquisition or payment of compensation.