By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 15 October 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer
Farming families across India are sitting on old land acquisition notifications, some decades old, where a government department took steps to acquire agricultural land, an award was passed, and then nothing visibly happened for years. No possession was taken, or compensation was never actually paid into the family's hands, and the land has continued to be cultivated as if nothing changed. Families in this situation often believe, sometimes on the strength of local lawyers' advice, that the acquisition has simply lapsed with time and the land is theirs free and clear.
That belief is only sometimes correct, and getting it wrong can be expensive, since a family that treats lapsed land as fully theirs, sells it, or builds on it, while the acquisition is in fact still alive, is exposed to losing both the land and whatever was invested in it. Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 lays down a specific test for when an old acquisition proceeding lapses, and the Supreme Court's 2020 Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal narrowed that test considerably from what many landowners had assumed it meant.
What Section 24(2) actually says
Section 24 of the 2013 Act deals with land acquisition proceedings initiated under the earlier Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that were still pending when the 2013 Act came into force on 1 January 2014. Section 24(2) provides that where an award was made five years or more before the 2013 Act commenced, and physical possession of the land has not been taken, or compensation has not been paid, the proceedings are deemed to have lapsed, and the landowners become entitled to compensation under the new, generally more generous 2013 Act if the government wants to acquire the same land again.
The provision reads as though either condition, non-possession or non-payment, triggers a lapse on its own. For years after the 2013 Act was passed, this is roughly how many High Courts and even some Supreme Court benches interpreted it: prove either that possession was never taken, or that compensation was never paid, and the old acquisition was treated as dead.
That reading created an obvious problem for the government in a huge number of old acquisitions where possession had in fact been taken decades earlier, roads or buildings had come up on the land, but the compensation amount had for one bureaucratic reason or another never actually reached the landowner's hands, often sitting instead in a government treasury account or a court deposit. Under the broad reading, all of these acquisitions would lapse, effectively undoing public infrastructure built over the land years before.
How Indore Development Authority changed the test
A five-judge Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, decided in 2020, resolved a conflict between earlier Supreme Court benches and settled the law. The Court held that Section 24(2) requires both conditions to be shown together for a lapse: the landowner has to show that possession was not taken and that compensation was not paid or deposited. If either one happened, meaning if the government took possession, or if it paid or validly deposited the compensation, the acquisition does not lapse merely because the other condition was also unmet.
The Court also clarified what counts as payment. Depositing the compensation amount in the government's own treasury is not the same as paying the landowner, and does not by itself defeat a lapse claim on the payment limb. But where the government tendered the compensation to the landowner as required under the old Act's Section 31(1), and the landowner refused to accept it or did not collect it, the landowner cannot later claim the acquisition lapsed for non-payment, because the obligation to pay was in fact discharged through a valid tender.
This 2020 ruling specifically overruled an earlier three-judge bench decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which had taken the broader, landowner-friendly view that non-deposit of compensation in court by itself caused a lapse regardless of possession. Any legal opinion or local advice that relies on the Pune Municipal Corporation standard without accounting for Indore Development Authority is now out of date.
Why possession is often the harder fact to establish either way
In practice, most disputes under Section 24(2) today turn less on legal argument and more on a straightforward factual question: did the acquiring authority actually take physical possession of this specific land, and when. Government records sometimes show a possession memo or a mahazar recording symbolic possession taken decades ago, while the family continued to cultivate the land undisturbed, which raises a genuine dispute about whether that paper possession reflected reality.
Courts applying Indore Development Authority have generally held that once an award is made and physical possession is actually taken, even where the land is left unused and the original family continues some cultivation informally, the acquisition is complete and ownership has already vested in the government; continued cultivation afterward does not revive the landowner's title. This means a family's practical, undisturbed use of land for years after an award is not, by itself, proof that possession was never legally taken, and families relying on continued cultivation as their main evidence should gather supporting material, including revenue records, panchnamas or survey reports from around the time of the award, rather than relying only on present-day use.
Where there genuinely was no possession memo, no handover, and no compensation payment or valid tender, Indore Development Authority still allows the lapse to operate, and the Court has applied this in later batches of cases, including a 2025 Supreme Court order in State of Haryana v. Aalamgir, which permitted the State to invoke the Indore Development Authority standard and sent land acquisition matters back for fresh examination on that footing.
What happens once a lapse is established
Where a court does find that an old acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2), the legal consequence is not that the land becomes untouchable by the government forever. It means the earlier acquisition proceeding under the 1894 Act is treated as having come to nothing, and if the government still wants the land, it has to initiate a fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act, which carries a different, generally higher compensation structure, a social impact assessment requirement in many cases, and separate rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements for affected families.
For a farming family, this is often the more valuable practical outcome than simply keeping the land, particularly where the land now sits inside an area that has been substantially developed around it, roads built, or other infrastructure put in by the state in reliance on the earlier acquisition. A fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act typically pays several times the award amount fixed decades earlier under the old law.
Families should not assume a lapse finding automatically means they can start selling, mortgaging or building on the land as full, unencumbered owners without first getting the position confirmed in court or through a formal government order recognising the lapse, since an informal belief that the acquisition lapsed carries no legal weight against the record until a competent court or authority actually says so.
What to actually do if you believe your family's acquisition has lapsed
The starting point is not a general belief that nothing happened, it is specific documentary proof. A family should apply under the Right to Information Act for the complete acquisition file, including the award, any possession memo or panchnama, and any record of compensation having been deposited or tendered. Without this file, a lapse claim is argued on assumption rather than fact, and courts applying Indore Development Authority expect the landowner to affirmatively establish both the absence of possession and the absence of payment, not merely assert it.
Where the file shows a genuine gap, meaning no possession memo and no record of payment or valid tender, the appropriate step is usually a writ petition before the jurisdictional High Court seeking a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2), rather than waiting for the government to act on its own, since the government has no obvious incentive to voluntarily concede a lapse that gives up land it has treated as its own for years.
Where the file shows possession was in fact taken, or compensation was validly tendered and refused, pursuing a lapse claim is likely to fail, and the family's stronger remedy may instead be an application for enhanced compensation through the usual reference process, or a claim for interest on delayed payment, rather than a claim that the acquisition itself is void.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does non-payment of compensation alone cause an old land acquisition to lapse under Section 24(2)?
No. After the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, a lapse requires both that possession was not taken and that compensation was not paid or validly tendered. If the government took possession, the acquisition does not lapse merely because compensation was never actually paid into the landowner's hands.
The government deposited our compensation in court decades ago but we never withdrew it. Does that count as payment?
Deposit in the government's own treasury is generally not treated as payment to the landowner for this purpose. But if the amount was validly tendered to the family under the procedure the old law required and the family did not collect it, courts have treated the obligation to pay as discharged, which can defeat a lapse claim on the payment limb even without actual receipt.
If our family continued farming the acquired land for years after the award, does that prove possession was never taken by the government?
Not necessarily. Courts have held that once an award is passed and physical possession is formally taken, even symbolically through a recorded possession memo, ownership vests in the government, and a family's continued, informal cultivation afterward does not by itself prove possession was never taken or revive the family's title.
What should we do first if we believe our land's acquisition has lapsed?
File a Right to Information application for the complete acquisition file, specifically looking for a possession memo and any record of payment or tender of compensation. Without that documentary record, a lapse claim is difficult to establish, and the specific facts in the file will determine whether a writ petition or a different remedy is the right next step.
References & Further Reading
The provisions and rulings below were relied on for this guide. The position can change with amendments and later decisions, so check the current text and the latest case law before acting on any of it.
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 24
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 31(1) (as applied to pending proceedings under Section 24)
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Constitution Bench)
- Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 (overruled by Indore Development Authority)
- State of Haryana v. Aalamgir, 2025 INSC 407