1. Special appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings and claiming lapse under Section 24(2), Act of 2013. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 7605
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, ACJ, Nupur Bhati, J
Takhat Singh Kothari Lrs – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1452/2025
Important Points
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applies only to pending acquisitions, not concluded ones. The five-year inaction period is calculated backward from January 1, 2014, and cannot be used to reopen cases where prior legal challenges have already been dismissed.
Subject
Land Acquisition - Lapse of Acquisition
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings - Inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act - Where possession had been taken and compensation deposited, no lapse occurs - Section 24 is applicable to pending proceedings, not to concluded proceedings where the legality has already been adjudicated and attained finality. (Paras 6, 8, and 9)
(B) Intra-court appeal - Scope - A Division Bench exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to treat the Single Judge as subordinate and should decide the appeal on merits rather than remitting the matter back. (Paras 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against the dismissal of a writ petition seeking a declaration that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The award was passed in 2002, and compensation was deposited with paper possession taken in 2007. Previous challenges to the acquisition were dismissed by the Single Judge, Division Bench, and the Supreme Court. The appellant claimed lapse because there was a delay of over five years between the award and the deposit of compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since compensation was deposited and paper possession taken in 2007, there was no inaction for the five-year period immediately preceding the commencement of the 2013 Act (01.01.2014). Furthermore, the proceedings had already attained finality through prior litigation.
Issues: The main issues were whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed due to delay between the award and compensation deposit, and whether Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act can be applied to concluded proceedings that had already been challenged and upheld by courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the five-year period for claiming "lapse" must be counted backward from 01.01.2014. Section 24 cannot be used to revive dead claims or reopen concluded cases where the challenge to the legality of the proceedings had already failed.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Intra-court appeal - Scope - A Division Bench exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to treat the Single Judge as subordinate and should decide the appeal on merits rather than remitting the matter back. (Paras 4 and 5)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against the dismissal of a writ petition seeking a declaration that land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The award was passed in 2002, and compensation was deposited with paper possession taken in 2007. Previous challenges to the acquisition were dismissed by the Single Judge, Division Bench, and the Supreme Court. The appellant claimed lapse because there was a delay of over five years between the award and the deposit of compensation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that since compensation was deposited and paper possession taken in 2007, there was no inaction for the five-year period immediately preceding the commencement of the 2013 Act (01.01.2014). Furthermore, the proceedings had already attained finality through prior litigation.
Issues: The main issues were whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed due to delay between the award and compensation deposit, and whether Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act can be applied to concluded proceedings that had already been challenged and upheld by courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the five-year period for claiming "lapse" must be counted backward from 01.01.2014. Section 24 cannot be used to revive dead claims or reopen concluded cases where the challenge to the legality of the proceedings had already failed.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
- statutory interpretation
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Narendra Thanvi, Mahendra Thanvi
For the Respondents: Vijay Purohit, Ayush Gehlot
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Narendra Thanvi, Mahendra Thanvi
For the Respondents: Vijay Purohit, Ayush Gehlot
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued acquisition lapsed due to delayed compensation deposit and non-taking of physical possession; respondent argued proceedings were concluded and res judicata applies. (Para 1 , 3 , 7 )
3. Section 24(2) not applicable to concluded proceedings; challenge to acquisition already failed; five-year period counted backwards from 2014, not from award date. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. Section 24(2) applies only to pending proceedings and counts five years backward from enactment; concluded proceedings cannot be reopened. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; all pending applications disposed of. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Is Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 applicable to concluded land acquisition proceedings?
No. Section 24(2) applies only to pending proceedings, not to concluded proceedings where the legality of acquisition has been upheld in earlier litigation. (Para 8 , 9 )
7. How is the five-year period for lapse under Section 24(2) calculated?
The five-year period is counted backwards from the date of commencement of the Act of 2013 (01.01.2014), not from the date of the award. (Para 9 )
8. Can a fresh cause of action arise under Section 24(2) after acquisition proceedings have been upheld by courts?
No. Section 24(2) does not create a fresh cause of action to challenge proceedings that have already been conclusively adjudicated and upheld. (Para 8 , 9 )
(Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice)
1. The present special appeal assails the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.07.2025, whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the prayers made by the appellant-writ petitioner were rejected. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors., ((2020) 8 SCC 129)", holding that the plea of lapsing of the acquisition proceedings does not stand. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, submitted that it is an erroneous interpretation taken by the learned Single Judge of the judgment passed in Indore Development Authority (Supra) and infact as per the judgment, the acquisition would lapse. It is stated that an award was passed for acquiring the land in-question on 16.01.2002 and the compensation amount was deposited in the Court on 24.03.2007 and paper possession was taken of the property, actual possession was never taken and the appellant continue to remain in possession of the property.
2. In the year 2007, he filed the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings which were disposed of and the acquisition was upheld vide order dated 18.03.2008 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1796/2007 thereafter he filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.351/2008 and the same was also dismissed on 09.02.2009. Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 17499/2009 against the said judgment was filed which came to be dismissed on 14.09.2009. Learned counsel submits that after the said acquisition proceedings were attained finality, the new Act known as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short 'the Act of 2013') came into force with effect from 01.01.20214 and as per the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013, since the possession had not been taken nor the compensation had been paid, the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6347/2014 on 16.09.2014 for declaring the land acquisition proceedings to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Interim order had been passed in his favour however, the learned Single Judge in terms of Indore Development Authority (Supra) has dismissed his writ petition. Hence, aggrieved thereto he has preferred this appeal.
3. Learned counsel submits that even as per the judgment passed in Indore Development Authority (Supra), the rights of the appellant-writ petitioner stand protected and then the land acquisition proceedings have shall be treated to have lapsed. In support of this contention he has invited our attention to the various paragraphs of the judgment to submit that more than 5 years 2 months and 8 days had lapsed between the date of award and the date when the amount was deposited in the Court and paper possession taken. Hence, in terms of the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 and the law laid down in Indore Indore Development Authority (Supra), the acquisition proceedings would stand lapsed after period of 5 years counting from the date of award. However, the learned Single Judge has not dwelt into this aspect relating to the Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 and the observations of the Indore Development Authority (Supra).
4. We however, are conscious that the Single Judge of the High Court is not sub-ordinate to the Division Bench and, therefore, this Court while sitting in the Division Bench would not remand the matter back to the Single Judge as the special appeal (writ) would only be in continuation of exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. The Apex Court in " Roma Sonkar v. M.P. State Public Service Commission , ((2018) 17 SCC 106)" has also held as under :-
"3. We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief. It is the exercise of jurisdiction of the
