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) 1199

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N. RAY, J.
 
Gordhanbhai Khimjibhai Patel – Petitioner 
Versus 
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 9311 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

Land acquisition proceedings lapse under transitionary provisions only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid. Where the state has validly taken possession or tendered payment, the acquisition is finalized and vested, precluding claims for a deemed lapse based on subsequent legislative changes.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition - Act of 2013 - Section 24(2) - Deemed lapse of proceedings - Requirements - Proviso for lapse applies only where both physical possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid - If either condition is met, no lapse occurs. (Paras 3, 10)

(B) Land Acquisition - Possession - Mode of taking - Inquest report or memorandum represents an approved mode of taking possession - Once award is passed and possession taken under applicable laws, the land vests absolutely in the authority and no divesting is provided under newer provisions. (Paras 5, 12)

(C) Compensation - Payment - Obligation to pay is satisfied upon tender of compensation under relevant statutory mandates - Failure to deposit compensation in court does not trigger a lapse if the tender was otherwise valid. (Paras 4, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged acquisition proceedings initiated under older legislation, contending that the proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed because the authorities failed to take possession or pay compensation as required by current law. The petition was filed years after the award was declared.

Findings of Court:
The court found the assertions regarding non-payment and non-possession to be vague and lacking substantiation. It determined that the acquisition process had concluded, with the land legally vesting in the respective authority, precluding any claim for a deemed lapse.

Issues: Whether the failure of the authorities to physically possess the land or deposit compensation in court necessitated a declaration of lapsed acquisition proceedings under current transitionary provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: A deemed lapse under the transitionary provisions only occurs where there is a concurrent failure to take possession and to pay compensation. Once land has vested in the government through valid administrative acts, the proceedings are considered concluded and cannot be reopened by invoking provisions for deemed lapse, especially where claims are stale and unsubstantiated.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. current acquisition status and petitioner claims. (Para 1 , 7)
2. conditions for deemed lapse under section 24(2) of the 2013 act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. application of land acquisition law and rejection of vague pleas. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. final dismissal of petition regarding stale land acquisition claims. (Para 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

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