The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has delivered a definitive ruling clarifying that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if compensation has been paid and physical possession has been taken, even after a prolonged delay. This judgment resolves long-standing confusion arising from conflicting interpretations of Section 24(2) and reaffirms the finality of concluded acquisition processes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, landowners from Mangampet Village in Y.S.R. District, challenged notices issued by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APMDC) directing them to vacate land acquired in 2003 for barytes mining. Though an award was passed on 04.09.2002 and compensation was paid to the petitioners’ father, they claimed continuous possession of the land for over a decade, cultivating paddy and resisting eviction. The APMDC, citing a 2005 inquest report and revenue mutation records, asserted that possession had been lawfully taken and that the petitioners were trespassers in the 300-meter buffer zone around the mining site.
Procedural History
- 2002: Award No. H.88/2001 passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, fixing compensation at Rs. 450 per cent.
- 2003 - 2005: Acquisition proceedings initiated; possession taken by Mandal Revenue Officer on 19.03.2005 via inquest report; mutation effected in revenue records.
- 2012: Land physically taken over by APMDC.
- 2013: APMDC issued eviction notices (Ref. No. APMDC/LA/StructuresNotice/ dated 10.12.2013) after petitioners allegedly encroached into the buffer zone.
- 2014: Petitioners filed 15 writ petitions seeking to declare the notices illegal and invoke Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to claim lapse of acquisition.
- 12.09.2014: Single Judge granted interim relief, relying on Pune Municipal Corporation (2014) 3 SCC 183, holding that prolonged possession despite award meant lapse.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus declaring the eviction notices illegal, quashing them, and asserting that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, thereby requiring fresh acquisition.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 deems acquisition proceedings to have lapsed if compensation was paid and physical possession was taken more than five years before the Act’s commencement, but the land remained in the possession of the original landowners.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183, arguing that since they had remained in physical possession for over 12 years after the award, and no formal dispossession occurred, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2). They contended that payment under protest and lack of formal eviction rendered the acquisition incomplete, and that the 2013 Act required fresh acquisition with enhanced compensation.
For the Respondent
The APMDC countered that possession was lawfully taken on 19.03.2005 via inquest report, as recognized under Balmokand Khatri and State of Haryana v. Sunder Lal. Compensation was paid in full, and mutation records confirmed vesting of title in the State. They argued that Section 24(2) requires both non-possession AND non-payment for lapse, and that the Pune Municipal Corporation precedent had been overruled by Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous doctrinal review of the evolving jurisprudence on Section 24(2). It noted that the petitioners’ reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation was rendered obsolete by the Constitution Bench’s decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, which explicitly overruled the earlier judgment. The Court emphasized that the Constitution Bench held that the word "or" in Section 24(2) must be read as "and" or "nor" - meaning lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken AND compensation has not been paid.
"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."
The Court further held that tendering compensation under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act completes the State’s obligation, regardless of whether the landowner accepts it. The payment of Rs. 47,450 per acre, even if received under protest, discharged the statutory liability. The Court also relied on Ram Singh v. Jammu Development Authority (2017) 13 SCC 474, which held that post-acquisition possession by landowners is illegal and cannot confer any legal right.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim that the buffer zone’s vacancy justified their continued occupation. It affirmed that once possession is taken via inquest report and mutation is effected, the land vests absolutely in the State, and any subsequent occupation is trespass. The absence of a rejoinder to the counter-affidavit further weakened the petitioners’ factual assertions.
The Verdict
The petitioners lost. The Court held that Section 24(2) of the LARR Act, 2013 does not trigger lapse if compensation has been paid and physical possession has been lawfully taken, even if the land remains in the de facto possession of the original owners. The eviction notices were upheld as lawful, and all 15 writ petitions were dismissed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Possession Taken = No Lapse
- Practitioners must now argue that physical possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, evidenced by inquest report or panchnama, defeats any claim of lapse under Section 24(2).
- Merely showing that landowners remained on the land after award is insufficient - the burden shifts to them to prove non-possession by the State.
Compensation Payment Is Conclusive
- Payment under protest, or even if not formally accepted, satisfies the "paid" requirement under Section 24(2).
- Deposit in government treasury or court is irrelevant for lapse; only non-tendering triggers the proviso.
Trespass After Acquisition Is Not Protected
-
Landowners who re-enter acquired land after compensation and possession are trespassers.
-
Courts will not entertain claims for de-notification or release of land based on post-acquisition encroachments, especially where the State has a legitimate use (e.g., mining buffer zone).
-
Practitioners should immediately review pending land acquisition cases where possession was taken before 2014 - Section 24(2) challenges are now legally untenable.
-
In eviction proceedings, focus on documentary proof of possession (inquest report, mutation, revenue records) rather than disputing the duration of possession by landowners.
