The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced the statutory mandate under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, by directing a Collector to decide a pending representation on whether land acquisition proceedings from 1998-99 have lapsed due to non-possession and non-payment for over two decades. This order clarifies that administrative inaction cannot override statutory lapses, even where acquisition was initiated under prior law.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, permanent residents of Village Ahirkhedi, Tehsil Raghogarh, District Guna, are agricultural dependents who have cultivated land bearing Survey No. 235, measuring 2.693 hectares, since the lifetime of their father, Late Shri Balram @ Balla Ahirwar, who was the recorded owner. In 1998-99, the State initiated acquisition proceedings for the establishment of an Industrial Development Centre. Despite the initiation of proceedings, no award was made, no compensation was paid, and no possession was taken from the petitioners.
Key Facts
- The land has remained in the continuous possession and cultivation of the petitioners since the death of their father
- No compensation was paid to the petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest at any point after 1998-99
- No physical possession of the land was taken by the State or its agencies between 1998 and 2025
- On 03.11.2025, officials visited the land and threatened dispossession, citing records showing the name of Mahaprabandhak, Zila Udyog Kendra, Guna, as the new owner
- The petitioners verified revenue records for 2025-26 and discovered the unauthorized entry of the State agency as owner
- On 09.12.2025, the petitioners submitted a representation (Annexure P/1) to the Collector, District Guna, invoking Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act to declare the acquisition proceedings lapsed
- No decision has been rendered on the representation as of the date of filing the writ petition
Procedural History
- 1998-99: Land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- 03.11.2025: Threat of dispossession communicated to petitioners
- 09.12.2025: Representation filed before Collector, District Guna, seeking lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
- 29.04.2026: Writ Petition No. 11739 of 2026 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- A direction to the Collector to decide their representation dated 09.12.2025 under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
- A declaration that the 1998-99 acquisition proceedings have lapsed
- Restoration of their possession over Survey No. 235
- Any other relief in the interest of justice
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, applies to acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act where neither compensation has been paid nor possession taken within five years of the notification, and whether the Collector is obligated to decide a representation invoking this provision.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the acquisition proceedings initiated in 1998-99 have lapsed under Section 24(2) because more than five years have elapsed since the notification without payment of compensation or taking of possession. The representation dated 09.12.2025 was a lawful invocation of statutory rights, and the Collector’s inaction amounted to a violation of the petitioners’ right to property under Article 300A and the statutory mandate under the 2013 Act. Reliance was placed on Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India to establish that lapse is automatic and mandatory.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Government Advocate, did not contest the legal position. It conceded that if the representation was properly filed and the facts supported lapse, the Collector must decide it. The State expressed no objection to the Court issuing a direction for expeditious disposal.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 24(2), which provides: "Where, in any proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the period of five years has elapsed from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19, and either the compensation has not been paid or possession has not been taken, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed."
The Court noted that the acquisition proceedings were initiated in 1998-99, and as of the filing of the representation in December 2025, more than 26 years had passed without payment of compensation or taking of possession. The Court observed that the statutory lapse under Section 24(2) is not contingent on any application or adjudication - it is automatic upon the expiry of five years. However, the petitioners’ representation was a necessary step to trigger administrative action.
"The legislature intended to protect landowners from indefinite uncertainty. Where possession has not been taken and compensation not paid, the acquisition cannot remain in legal limbo."
The Court emphasized that the Collector, as the designated authority under the 2013 Act, has a statutory duty to examine such representations and issue a reasoned order. Administrative delay cannot override a clear statutory provision. The Court declined to express any opinion on whether lapse has occurred, noting that this is a factual and legal determination for the Collector.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed the Collector, District Guna, to consider and decide the petitioners’ representation dated 09.12.2025 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Court made clear that this direction is not an expression of opinion on the merits. No monetary relief was granted, but the statutory obligation to decide was enforced.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Inaction Cannot Override Statutory Lapse
- Practitioners must file representations under Section 24(2) even if lapse appears automatic
- The Collector’s duty to decide is mandatory, not discretionary
- Delay in deciding representations is a ground for writ relief under Article 226
Lapse Applies Even to Pre-2013 Acquisitions
- Acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act are governed by Section 24(2) if pending as of January 1, 2014
- The five-year period runs from the date of notification under Section 19 of the 1894 Act
- No award or possession = automatic lapse, regardless of administrative silence
Representation Must Be Reasoned and Speaking
- A mere acknowledgment of representation is insufficient
- The Collector must record findings on: (a) date of notification, (b) payment status, (c) possession status, (d) applicability of Section 24(2)
- Failure to issue a speaking order invites judicial review
