Acquisition Concluded Decades Ago Not Revivable Under S.24(2) of 2013 Act; Plea Barred by Res Judicata & Delay: Allahabad High Court - 2025-09-18

Allahabad High Court Rejects Plea to Invalidate 30-Year-Old Land Acquisition, Cites Finality and Supreme Court Precedent

Allahabad, UP – The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions seeking to declare a three-decade-old land acquisition in Meerut as lapsed, ruling that concluded proceedings cannot be revived under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. A division bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Vinod Diwakar held that the petitions were barred by constructive res judicata, delay, and were legally unsustainable in light of a landmark Supreme Court constitution bench judgment.

Case Background: A Decades-Long Dispute

The case involves land acquired in 1990 in Village Abdullapur, Meerut, for the Meerut Development Authority’s (MDA) ‘Ganga Nagar Awasiya Vyasayik Yojana’ (Ganga Nagar Residential and Commercial Scheme). The acquisition, initiated under the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had seen multiple rounds of litigation, even reaching the Supreme Court, which upheld the acquisition in 2013.

The current petitioners, successors to the original landowners, approached the High Court arguing 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. They contended that neither was physical possession of their land ever taken by the authorities, nor was compensation paid to them.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Stance: * Lapse of Acquisition: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the twin conditions for a valid acquisition—taking physical possession and payment of compensation—were not met for over three decades, triggering the lapsing provision of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. * Principle of Parity: They claimed discrimination, pointing out that the State government had de-notified adjacent plots of land under the same scheme in 2016 and 2017, and they were entitled to similar treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution. * Continued Possession: The petitioners submitted photographs to show they were still cultivating the land, asserting that no development had taken place on their plots.

Respondents' Counter-Arguments (State and MDA): * Finality and Res Judicata: The MDA, represented by Senior Advocate M.C. Chaturvedi, argued that the issue was already settled. The petitioners' predecessors were part of a previous writ petition dismissed in 2013, and the Supreme Court had also upheld the acquisition, making the current petitions an attempt at re-litigation. * Compliance with Law: The respondents submitted records showing that possession was taken over in phases, with the relevant portion handed over on May 24, 2002. They also stated that compensation was deposited in court on December 13, 2007, for landowners who had refused to accept it, fulfilling their legal obligation. * Binding Precedent: Critically, they relied on the Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) , which clarified that for an acquisition to lapse under Section 24(2), both possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid. The fulfillment of even one condition saves the acquisition. * Approbate and Reprobate: It was highlighted that the petitioners' predecessors had filed Land Acquisition References (LARs) seeking higher compensation, which legally implied their acceptance of the acquisition itself.

Court's Findings and Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed the long history of the litigation and the prevailing legal principles to dismiss the petitions.

1. On Finality and Res Judicata: The bench noted that the petitioners' predecessors had previously challenged the same acquisition, and the matter had been conclusively decided by both the High Court and the Supreme Court in 2013. The court held, "The petition suffers from the vice of Constructive res judicata... Having participated in the acquisition proceedings and sought enhanced compensation... it is not open to the the petitioners to now claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed."

2. On the Interpretation of Section 24(2): Leaning heavily on the Indore Development Authority judgment, the court found the petitioners' primary argument untenable. It observed:

"The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority (supra), has decisively ruled that acquisition shall not be deemed to have lapsed if either of the two conditions, namely, payment of compensation or taking of possession, is fulfilled. In the present case, both conditions stand satisfied."

The court further emphasized that Section 24(2) does not create a new cause of action to challenge proceedings that had already concluded before the 2013 Act came into force.

3. On the Claim of Parity: The court rejected the petitioners' argument for equal treatment with de-notified landowners. It explained that the 2016-17 de-notifications were based on an earlier Supreme Court ruling ( Pune Municipal Corporation ) which was expressly overruled by the larger bench in Indore Development Authority . The court stated, "The principle of equality under Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim relief in derogation of law."

4. On Delay and Laches: The bench also found the petition "hopelessly barred by delay and laches," as the challenge was mounted over 30 years after the acquisition process began, without any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay.

Final Verdict

In its concluding remarks, the court affirmed that the acquisition was lawfully concluded, possession was duly taken, and the land had vested with the State free from all encumbrances. The petitions were dismissed as legally unsustainable, barred by principles of finality, and lacking in merit.