Land Acquisition Does Not Lapse Once Possession Is Taken And Compensation Paid: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“Section 24(2) Cannot Reopen Concluded Acquisition Proceedings Or Revive Stale Claims”, On 05 March 2026, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing a batch of writ petitions challenging eviction notices issued for land acquired for barytes mining in Mangampet Village, Y.S.R. District.

Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad held that once compensation has been paid and possession has been taken under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquisition proceedings cannot lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court further clarified that Section 24 of the 2013 Act cannot be used to reopen concluded land acquisition proceedings or revive stale claims.

The petitioners challenged eviction notices issued by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation (APMDC) directing them to vacate land acquired for barytes mining operations.

The lands located in Mangampet Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Y.S.R. District had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An award dated 04.09.2002 determined compensation for the acquired land, which was paid to the landowners.

According to the petitioners, even after the award was passed, they continued to remain in physical possession of the land and carried out agricultural activities for more than 12 years. They contended that since they were never dispossessed, the acquisition proceedings stood lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and therefore the State could only take possession after initiating fresh acquisition under the 2013 law.

The petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) which had interpreted Section 24(2) to hold that acquisition would lapse if either possession had not been taken or compensation had not been paid for more than five years before the commencement of the 2013 Act.

The AP Mineral Development Corporation opposed the petitions and asserted that the acquisition proceedings had been completed long ago.

The respondents placed on record proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 19.03.2005, demonstrating that possession of the acquired land had been taken and handed over to the Corporation. Mutation was also effected in the revenue records reflecting the vesting of the land in the State.

The Corporation further explained that under mining safety regulations it was required to maintain a 300-metre buffer zone around the mining site, which must remain free from habitation due to safety concerns.

According to the respondents, certain individuals including the petitioners had re-entered the buffer zone around 2013 and encroached upon the land, prompting the issuance of eviction notices.

“Possession Taken Under Land Acquisition Act Results In Absolute Vesting Of Land” – Court

The High Court examined the record and noted that possession had been taken in 2005 by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the land was subsequently mutated in favour of the State.

The Court observed that once possession is taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests absolutely in the State and cannot be divested.

The Court made it clear that even if a former landowner continues to remain physically on the land after acquisition, such possession cannot create any legal right.

The Court observed:

“Even assuming that the actual physical possession remained with the writ petitioners, it would not confer any legally enforceable right upon them since compensation had already been received and the land had vested in the State.”

“Reliance On Pune Municipal Corporation Case Is Misplaced” – Court

The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which had interpreted Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act in favour of landowners.

However, the High Court pointed out that the said judgment no longer represents the correct position of law after being expressly overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020).

The Court quoted the Constitution Bench ruling which clarified that deemed lapse under Section 24(2) occurs only when both conditions are satisfied simultaneously — possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid.

The Court emphasised:

“Deemed lapse takes place only where possession has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. If either of these conditions is satisfied, there is no lapse of acquisition proceedings.”

“Section 24 Of The 2013 Act Does Not Revive Concluded Acquisition Proceedings”

The Court further relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority, which clarified that Section 24 does not create a new cause of action to challenge completed acquisitions.

The Court observed that the provision applies only to proceedings that were pending as on 1 January 2014, and cannot be used to reopen acquisitions that had already been completed years earlier.

Thus, the Court held that the petitioners’ claim that the State must initiate fresh acquisition under the 2013 Act was legally untenable.

“Re-Entry Into Acquired Land Is Illegal Encroachment” – Court

The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ram Singh v. Jammu Development Authority, which held that once land is acquired and compensation paid, any subsequent occupation by the landowner amounts to illegal possession.

Referring to the facts of the case, the Court concluded that the petitioners had re-entered the mining buffer zone years after the acquisition and receipt of compensation.

Such occupation, the Court observed, cannot create any enforceable right to remain on the land or demand its reacquisition.

“Encroacher Cannot Seek Protection Of Possession” – Court

The Court also cited State of Haryana v. Sunder Lal, where the Supreme Court held that a person who re-enters acquired land and raises constructions cannot seek protection of such possession.

Applying the same principle, the Court concluded that the petitioners had no legal right to retain possession of the acquired land, particularly when the land had already vested in the State and compensation had been paid.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ultimately dismissed the batch of writ petitions, holding that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were valid and had not lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court upheld the eviction action initiated by the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation, observing that the petitioners had no enforceable right to remain on the acquired land after receipt of compensation and vesting of the land in the State.

Date of Decision: 05 March 2026