SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N. RAY, J.
 
Tarshibhai Raghavbhai Ghori – Petitioner 
Versus 
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents 
R/Special Civil Application No. 8265 of 2017
Decided On : 13-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr MD Vakil
For the Respondents: MS Hetal Patel, AGP, Notice Served By DS.

The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings requires both failure to take physical possession and failure to pay compensation. Once valid possession is established via an inquest report or memorandum, the land vests in the government, and the acquisition does not lapse.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11, 12, 16 - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Deemed lapse of proceedings - Compensation - Possession - Conditions for lapse: Deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings occurs only when authorities fail both to take physical possession and to pay compensation for five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act. (Paras 3, 9, 10).

(B) Land Acquisition - Conclusion of proceedings - Once an award is passed and possession is taken by drawing an inquest report or memorandum, the land vests in the state, precluding any claim of lapse. Failure to pay or deposit compensation does not necessarily result in lapse if the possession has been taken. (Paras 5, 12, 13).

(C) Limitation - Stale claims - Legislative provision pertaining to deemed lapse does not provide a new cause of action to challenge concluded proceedings or revive time-barred claims. (Paras 6, 14).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged acquisition proceedings initiated under previous legislation, claiming the proceedings lapsed because compensation was not paid and possession was not taken. The petitioner sought a declaration that the acquisition was invalid.

Findings of Court:
The court determined the petition lacked evidence regarding the mode of possession and compensation status. Under established precedents, once authorities have taken possession via a memorandum or inquest, the land vests in the state, preventing a claim of valid lapse.

Issues: Whether land acquisition proceedings initiated under previous legislation had lapsed due to the alleged failure to pay compensation and take physical possession.

Ratio Decidendi: The deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings is strictly conditional upon the concurrent failure to pay compensation and to take physical possession. Furthermore, the mode of taking possession by drawing an inquest report is legally sufficient to vest land, rendering any challenge after valid vesting unsustainable.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks declaration of land acquisition lapse under section 24(2). (Para 1 , 7 , 8)
2. conditions for deemed lapse under section 24(2) of 2013 act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. dismissal of stale claims for non-compliance with statutory criteria. (Para 13 , 14)

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. We may note, at the outset, that at the time when the issue pertaining to the scope of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2013’) was subject matter of consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129] and the decision of three judge bench in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [2014 (3) SCC 183] was holding the field, the present petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“(A) Be pleased to allow this petition

(B) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order, or direction in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents authorities to set-aside and to struck down the Notification, declaration and award passed in L.A.Q. case No. 2/96 on dt. 14-06-2000 in respect of agricultural Land bearing survey No. 523/ Paikee of admeasuring 0-03-92 sq. mtr of acquired Land situate at Vill. Bhandariya Tal. Bhavnagar, Dist. Bhavnagar and also directed to the respondents for making the procedure for lapse of the Land Acquision proceeding initiated under the said award u/s 11 of the Act in LAQ case No 2/96 in respect of acquired Land in Question of petitioner in the interest of justice and in terms of section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013.

(C) During the pendency of this petition, be pleased to restrain the respondents authorities or any other Private agency to take the physical possession of the acquired Lands in Question from the Law full custody of the petitioner.

(D) Be pleased to grant other and further relief as deems fits and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority (supra) has rendered a decision on 06.03.2020 overruling Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and all other decisions wherein Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been followed. The ratio of the decision in Indore Development Authority (supra) summarized in Paragraph No. ‘366’ reads as under:-

“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the questions as under:

366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.

366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.

366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.

366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top