Landowners got court stays, then claimed acquisition lapsed. SC says no.

They fought the acquisition in court for years, got stay after stay. Then they turned around and said — the acquisition has lapsed because of the delay.

The Supreme Court shut that door in March 2022. The bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna ruled: a landowner who blocks his own acquisition with court orders cannot later claim the process died from the delay he created. The judgment in The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Bangalore v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. is a sharp reminder that legal strategy carries consequences — and that the 2013 land law was never meant to trap the government when the landowner himself held the key.

When the Trust fought the market

The 1990s. The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC), Bangalore — the body running the city's wholesale fruit and vegetable markets — needed land for a mega market. It identified large tracts belonging to the Jamanlal Bajaj Seva Trust.

Two separate acquisitions were launched under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894: one for 172 acres 22 guntas in September 1994, and another for 104 acres 5 guntas in April 1999, the latter using the urgency clause (Section 17) that allowed faster possession.

The Trust did not sit quietly. It filed writ petitions in the Karnataka High Court challenging the notifications. It obtained interim orders — court directions that temporarily stopped the acquisition process or prevented the government from taking possession. Those stays kept the matter alive for years. Meanwhile, parallel proceedings before the Land Reforms Tribunal under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 raised questions about whether the Trust held excess land.

The clock kept ticking. The award — the official determination of compensation — was not made. Possession was not taken. The land stayed with the Trust. The litigation stayed in court.

The 2013 Act and the lapse argument

Then came the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — a new law that replaced the 1894 Act. It contained a provision that changed the game: Section 24(2).

Section 24(2) says that if, as of January 1, 2014, the government had not made the award (the compensation order) or taken possession of the land under the old Act, the entire acquisition proceeding lapses — it dies, and the land goes back to the owner. The provision was designed to clear the backlog of old, stalled acquisitions where the government had done nothing for decades.

The Trust saw its opening. It argued: the award had not been made. Possession had not been taken. The cut-off date had passed. The acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2). The government's delay, it said, was fatal.

The Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court agreed. In June 2014, he allowed the Trust's writ petitions and declared the acquisition lapsed. The Division Bench upheld that decision on appeal.

The APMC then approached the Supreme Court.

Why the Supreme Court said no

The Supreme Court's answer was rooted in a Constitution Bench decision it had already delivered in 2020: Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. That judgment had settled a crucial question about how Section 24(2) works.

The Indore case held that the word 'or' in Section 24(2) — which says lapse occurs if the award has not been made or possession has not been taken — must be read as 'nor' or 'and'. In plain language: for the acquisition to lapse, both conditions must be missing. The government must have failed to make the award and failed to take possession. More importantly, the Constitution Bench ruled that if the delay in making the award or taking possession was caused by the landowner's own court orders — stays, injunctions, or other interim relief — the landowner cannot claim the benefit of the lapse. You cannot create the delay and then profit from it.

The Supreme Court applied that principle directly. The Trust had obtained interim orders that stopped the acquisition process. Those orders were the reason the award was not made and possession was not taken. The Trust could not now turn around and say: look, the government did nothing, so the acquisition is dead.

"A declaration that land acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is unsustainable where the delay in making the award and paying compensation was attributable to interim orders obtained by the landowners themselves," the bench held.

The shortcut the High Court took

But the Supreme Court found another problem with the High Court's approach — one that goes beyond this case to how courts handle complex land acquisition disputes.

The Single Judge had framed five issues for decision. These included the validity of the initial notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the 1894 Act, the legality of the government's use of the urgency clause (Section 17), and the interplay between the acquisition proceedings and the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. But the Single Judge decided only one issue — the lapse under Section 24(2) — and left the other four undecided. The Division Bench did the same on appeal.

The Supreme Court called this a "shortcut approach." Courts have a duty, it said, to adjudicate on all framed issues and render findings on each. Deciding only one issue and leaving the rest open increases the burden on appellate courts. When the sole decided issue is found erroneous — as it was here — the entire case must be sent back, wasting years of litigation.

The bench quashed both the Single Judge's order and the Division Bench's judgment and remanded the matter back to the Single Judge. The writ petitions must now be decided afresh on all issues except the lapse under Section 24(2), which is finally closed. The High Court has been directed to complete the exercise within 12 months.

What this means for landowners and government

For landowners who have challenged an acquisition in court, the message is clear: interim relief comes with a hidden cost. If you obtain a stay that prevents the government from completing the process, you cannot later argue that the government's inaction amounts to abandonment. The clock stops when you stop it.

For government bodies acquiring land, the judgment is a practical tool. When a landowner claims lapse under Section 24(2), the government can now point to the landowner's own court orders as the reason for the delay. The burden shifts: the landowner must show that the government had a fair opportunity to proceed and simply chose not to.

For courts, the judgment is a procedural reminder. Framing issues is not a formality. Deciding only one issue and calling the case disposed is a disservice to the litigants and the appellate system. Every framed issue must be answered.

THE PLAY: When a landowner claims acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, check the court record for any interim order obtained by that landowner — if the delay was caused by that order, the lapse argument fails.

The land stayed with the Trust. The mega market stayed on paper. The case went back to the High Court, where four undecided issues still wait for an answer.