High Court holds acquisition did not lapse where award, possession and compensation process were complete; batch of eviction challenges dismissed

A Single‑Judge bench of Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad heard a batch of writ petitions questioning eviction notices issued by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (APMDC) and other authorities directing occupants to vacate acquired land in Mangampet village said to be required for barytes mining. The petitions challenged notices dated December 10, 2013 and invoked Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, contending that acquisition proceedings had lapsed and fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act was necessary.

The High Court dismissed the batch of petitions, holding that the petitioners could not claim lapse of the 1894 Act proceedings where the award had been passed, compensation had been tendered or paid and possession had been taken in accordance with law. The court said the petitioners’ reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) was misplaced in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020), which altered the interpretation of Section 24(2). The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The court further reiterated that where compensation had been paid or tendered and possession taken, claimants could not assert a right to remain: "this Court would safely deem it that the Writ Petitioners do not have a semblance of any right to stay in possession of the acquired property."

Background The petitions arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in 2003 for barytes mining. An award dated September 4, 2002 fixed compensation and amounts were paid to landowners; proceedings and revenue records showed mutation and a memorandum of physical possession taken on March 19, 2005. Decades after the award, certain persons—including the present petitioners—continued to occupy parts of the area, and APMDC issued eviction notices in December 2013 to clear a statutory 300‑metre mining buffer zone. Petitioners argued that because they remained in physical possession and more than five years had elapsed prior to the 2013 Act, acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) and the State must re‑acquire afresh under the 2013 Act.

The State respondents countered that possession was taken and mutation effected, that compensation and rehabilitation benefits were paid, and that the buffer zone needed to be vacated on safety and regulatory grounds. The High Court examined precedents, noting that the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment had been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority which clarified that Section 24(2) requires both non‑taking of possession and non‑payment of compensation for lapse to occur. The court relied on Supreme Court authorities including Indore Development Authority, Ram Singh v. Jammu Development Authority and other decisions confirming that tender/payment of compensation and lawful taking of possession prevent deemed lapse. Finding that the petitioners had not disputed the respondents’ averments of possession and payment, and that relevant interim orders did not alter the five‑year computation, the High Court concluded the petitions lacked merit and dismissed them. No costs were awarded and interlocutory applications were closed.

Case Details: Case No.: Writ Petition Nos. 27043, 22654, 22682, 22879, 23081, 23092, 23102, 23117, 23123, 23399, 23430, 24785, 24904, 24908, 31749 of 2014 Case Title: P. Ravindranath Reddy and Others v. The AP Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners For the Respondent(s): Sri N. Jeevan Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondents