Landmark Judgments on Land Acquisition: Complete Notes (Part N)

Part N gathers the case law that shaped and now patrols the 2013 Act: the Section 24 war and its Constitution Bench settlement, the Singur judgment, the equality of measure from Tarsem Singh to its 2026 review, the Article 300A revival from Vidya Devi to the seven sub-rights, and Narmada's rehabilitation charter. This consolidated note covers Topics 116 to 123 of this series.

1. The Section 24 War

Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (24 January 2014, three Judges) read "paid" in Section 24(2) with the 1894 Act's Section 31: payment to the owner or deposit in court; treasury deposit was not payment, so five-year-old awards with treasury-parked money lapsed. Shiv Raj applied it, Sree Balaji Nagar refused to exclude stay periods, and the flood of lapse petitions followed until Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) declared it per incuriam. Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (6 March 2020, Constitution Bench) settled the field: the conditions are conjunctive, "or" read as "nor", so lapse needs neither possession nor payment; tender is payment and treasury deposit on refusal causes no lapse; the proviso is a separate entitlement to 2013 compensation; stay periods are excluded; panchnama is possession; Section 24 revives nothing; and Pune Municipal was overruled. Transition, not amnesty, with four documents, award, panchnama, tender and stays, deciding every case.

2. Purpose, Equality and the Constitution

Singur: Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of West Bengal (31 August 2016): the acquisition of about 997 acres for Tata Motors was quashed; Gowda J held it a company acquisition dressed as Part II public purpose, bypassing Part VII, with a mechanical Section 5A enquiry; Mishra J accepted industrial development as a possible public purpose but found the 5A hearing vitiated by non-application of mind. Land returned within twelve weeks, compensation not refunded: the case behind Section 2(2) consent, the SIA hearing, Section 10 and Section 101.
Tarsem Singh (19 September 2019): the exclusion of solatium and interest from NH Act acquisitions violated Article 14; Section 3J read down. Tarsem Singh II (4 February 2025) refused prospective-only operation, and the review was dismissed on 25 March 2026: a liability of about 29,000 crore is no ground; payable are solatium, interest and interest on solatium; matters final before 28 March 2008 stay closed; delayed claims earn interest from the claim date. Same taking, same measure.
Vidya Devi (8 January 2020) and Sukh Dutt Ratra (6 April 2022): road takings of 1967 to 1968 and 1972 to 1973 without acquisition: dispossession without process violates Article 300A, property is a human right, the State cannot plead adverse possession, delay yields to a continuing wrong, and under Article 142 the land is deemed acquired with compensation and statutory benefits, with Sukh Dutt Ratra adding the State's parity obligation to laggard owners.
Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (16 May 2024): a street-widening provision is not an acquisition power, and Article 300A comprehends seven sub-rights: notice, hearing, reasoned decision, public purpose, fair compensation or restitution, an efficient and expeditious process, and conclusion, a constitutional floor beneath every taking under every statute.

3. Rehabilitation's Charter

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (18 October 2000, 2:1) let the Sardar Sarovar dam proceed on policy grounds, but pari passu: each height increase only after the Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-group certified resettlement of those affected at that height, with Grievance Redressal Authorities for oustees; the 2005 sequel enforced land for land, including for major sons. The 2013 Act legislates the principle: the scheme before the declaration, possession after payment, R&R six months before submergence in irrigation and hydel projects, one acre in the command area, and the LARR Authority as the oustees' forum.

4. The Part at a Glance

Case	Date	The rule it gave
Pune Municipal Corporation	24 January 2014	Treasury deposit is not payment (overruled 2020)
Kedar Nath Yadav (Singur)	31 August 2016	Company takings need company safeguards; a 5A hearing must engage; land returned
Tarsem Singh	19 September 2019	Solatium and interest for NH Act oustees: Article 14
Vidya Devi	8 January 2020	No adverse possession by the State; continuing wrong
Indore Development Authority	6 March 2020	Conjunctive lapse, tender pays, stays excluded, panchnama possesses
Sukh Dutt Ratra	6 April 2022	Parity for laggard owners under Article 300A
Bimal Kumar Shah	16 May 2024	Seven procedural sub-rights under Article 300A
Tarsem Singh II and review	4 February 2025; 25 March 2026	Not prospective; cost no ground; 2008 finality cut-off
Narmada Bachao Andolan	18 October 2000	Rehabilitation pari passu with construction

⚠ Key point

Part N in one line: Section 24 settled by Indore (conjunctive, tender pays, stays out, panchnama in, Pune Municipal overruled); purpose policed by Singur (land returned); measure equalised by Tarsem Singh and defended in 2025 and 2026; Article 300A rebuilt by Vidya Devi, Sukh Dutt Ratra and Bimal Kumar Shah's seven sub-rights; and rehabilitation made a condition by Narmada, then a precondition by the Act.

5. The Topics of This Part

Topic 116: The canon of landmark judgments
Topic 117: Pune Municipal Corporation (2014)
Topic 118: Indore Development Authority (2020)
Topic 119: Kedar Nath Yadav: the Singur judgment (2016)
Topic 120: Tarsem Singh (2019) and its sequels
Topic 121: Vidya Devi (2020) and Sukh Dutt Ratra (2022)
Topic 122: Bimal Kumar Shah (2024): the seven sub-rights
Topic 123: Narmada Bachao Andolan (2000) and rehabilitation jurisprudence