Successive writ petitions seeking deemed lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) are barred by res judicata.

The Petitioners, Satish Kumar and Jagdish, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the acquisition of 05 Biswas of land in Village Bamnoli

They contended that possession was never taken and that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the "2013 Act")

The Petitioners relied on Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) records from a District Court proceeding stating possession had not been taken

the Respondents argued that the same issue had already been adjudicated and dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court in Satish Kumar and Ors. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (2019)

1. Whether the present petition seeking a declaration of deemed lapsing of acquisition is maintainable in light of previous litigation on the same subject matter

2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled to a declaration of lapsing under Section 24 of the 2013 Act despite disputed facts regarding possession and compensation

The court primarily applied the doctrine of finality of litigation and the principle that stale or dead claims cannot be revived under Section 24 of the 2013 Act

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal Ors. (2020), which held that if either possession is taken or compensation is paid, acquisition does not lapse

to emphasize that Section 24 cannot be used to revive claims already negatived by courts or barred by laches/inaction

The Court observed that this present petition constituted a third round of litigation for the same subject land

In the second round (decided in 2019), the Court had already determined that the claim of non-possession involved disputed questions of fact that could not be examined in writ proceedings

Furthermore, the 2019 judgment found that compensation had been tendered via deposit in the Reference Court, meaning the twin conditions for lapsing under Section 24(2) were not fulfilled

In the current hearing, the Court held that since a Coordinate Bench had already considered all aspects—including the specific 05 biswas of land—the issue could not be re-canvassed

The Court applied the Indore Development Authority (2020) standard to conclude that the petition was not maintainable

The petition and pending applications were dismissed

the Court granted liberty to the Petitioners to claim compensation if still available

It directed the LAC to verify if compensation for the subject land remained unpaid and, if so, to release the same to the Petitioners