Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N. RAY, J.

Chaganbhai Bhikhabhai – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 9693 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

Deemed lapse of land acquisition occurs only when both compensation remains unpaid (not even tendered) and possession remains untaken. Tendering compensation constitutes valid payment, and recording possession via panchnama validates the transfer, precluding a claim of lapse in concluded proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 11, 12(2), 16, 31(1) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Deemed lapse of proceedings - Scope and applicability - Deemed lapse occurs only if neither compensation is paid nor physical possession is taken - Tendering of compensation is sufficient fulfillment of payment obligation - Taking possession via drawal of inquest report or panchnama is a valid mode under law - Once possession is taken, land vests in the state - (Paras 3, 4, 5, 10, 12).

(B) Limitation on review of concluded proceedings - The new legislation does not revive stale or time-barred claims and does not allow for reopening of completed acquisition processes initiated under the previous legislative framework - (Para 6).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the acquisition of agricultural land initiated under the previous legislative framework, contending that the proceedings had lapsed under the current statute. The petitioner alleged that compensation was neither paid nor deposited and that the land remained in the physical possession of the owner.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petition’s claims regarding non-payment and non-possession were vague and lacked factual substantiation. It held that the acquisition was concluded well before the enactment of the new statute and the prevailing legal position established by the highest court precludes the revival of such stale claims.

Issues: Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated under the previous legislative regime should be deemed lapsed under the provisions of the current statute for the alleged failure to take possession and pay compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the deemed lapse provision in the new statute is a transitory clause applicable only to pending matters where authorities failed to act. Given the validity of tendered compensation and paper possession, or the fact that the acquisition had already concluded and the land had vested in the state, no legal ground for a deemed lapse exists.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishing the factual matrix and initial pleas for land acquisition lapse. (Para 1 , 7)
2. supreme court guidelines on section 24(2) regarding possession and compensation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. applying section 24(2) logic to conclude whether prior acquisitions have lapsed. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. final order dismissing petition on the basis of concluded acquisition proceedings. (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 wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1203

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADSUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N. RAY, J. Chaganbhai Bhikhabhai – Petitioner Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors. – RespondentsR/Special Civil Application No. 9693 of 2017 Decided On : 13-04-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N. RAY, J.

Chaganbhai Bhikhabhai – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 9693 of 2017
Decided On : 13-04-2026