Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal: the Section 24(2) framework and the overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation

The doctrinal landscape of land acquisition in India had undergone substantial transformation with the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — replacing the colonial-era Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The transition between the two frameworks raised substantial substantive questions: what happens to acquisition proceedings that had been initiated under the 1894 Act but had not been completed by the time the 2013 Act came into force?

Section 24 of the 2013 Act addressed the transitional question. Section 24(1) provided that, where compensation under the 1894 Act had been determined but had not been paid, the 2013 Act's higher compensation framework would apply. Section 24(2) — the substantive provision that has produced extended doctrinal engagement — addressed cases where neither possession nor compensation had been progressed within specific timelines.

The substantive question that has divided the bar across the 2013–2020 period was the construction of Section 24(2). The text of the provision used the conjunction "or" between the possession-taken and compensation-paid conditions: where the acquisition authority had, for five years or more prior to the Act's commencement, not taken possession or not paid compensation, the acquisition would lapse.

The doctrinal question turned on whether "or" should be read in its disjunctive sense (either condition's non-satisfaction triggers the lapse) or in a conjunctive sense (both conditions must be unmet).

The Pune Municipal Corporation position

Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 had taken the disjunctive reading. The substantive position: where compensation had not been "paid" — interpreted strictly to mean deposited in court — the deemed lapse would operate even if possession had been taken. The substantive consequence: substantial land acquisitions that had been initiated under the 1894 Act, where the acquiring authority had taken possession but had not deposited compensation in court (often because the affected landowners had refused to accept the compensation), would lapse under the 2013 Act.

The Pune Municipal Corporation position had produced substantial substantive controversy. The framework's application had resulted in the lapse of acquisitions affecting significant infrastructure and development projects. Subsequent dispositions had engaged the substantive question, with various readings emerging across different cases.

The constitutional reference

The substantive doctrinal uncertainty led to a constitutional reference to a five-judge Constitution Bench. The substantive question for the Bench was the proper construction of Section 24(2) — whether the "or" should be read disjunctively or conjunctively, and whether the Pune Municipal Corporation position was correct.

The Bench heard substantial arguments from multiple parties — including the Union of India, multiple State governments (whose acquisition frameworks were substantially affected), affected landowners, and amicus contributions. The substantive engagement engaged the textual, doctrinal, and policy dimensions of the construction question.

On 6 March 2020, the Constitution Bench delivered judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The case is reported at (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Bench overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and substantially restructured the doctrinal architecture under Section 24(2).

The holding

The reasoning

The Bench's reasoning has four threads.

The textual reading

The first thread is textual. The Bench held that the proper construction of "or" in Section 24(2), in the broader context of the section's substantive purpose, is conjunctive rather than disjunctive. The substantive purpose of Section 24(2) is to address the institutional failure of acquisition authorities — cases where the acquisition has been both substantively stalled (no possession taken) and compensation has not been paid. The provision is not designed to lapse acquisitions where the institutional architecture has substantively engaged with one of the two dimensions.

The substantive reading rests on the section's broader purpose. The 2013 Act's substantive concern was to address acquisitions that had been administratively neglected; the deemed-lapse framework is calibrated to substantive institutional failure, not to the technical question of whether compensation has been deposited in court.

The tendering question

The second thread engages the substantive meaning of "paid." The Bench held that "paid" — properly construed — includes the tendering of compensation by the acquiring authority. Where the authority has substantively offered the compensation and the affected landowner has declined to accept it (often because of disputes about the amount), the substantive requirement of payment has been satisfied; deposit in court is not the sole valid mode of payment.

The substantive reading addresses a recurring institutional problem. Affected landowners in many cases had refused to accept compensation in order to challenge the substantive acquisition or to seek higher compensation. The Pune Municipal Corporation reading had effectively allowed this conduct to produce the lapse — substantively rewarding non-acceptance with the lapse of the acquisition. The Indore Development Authority reading substantively addresses the institutional concern.

The vesting doctrine

The third thread engages the substantive doctrine of vesting. The Bench held that where possession has been taken by the acquiring authority, the land has vested in the State. The vesting is substantive — the land's substantive ownership has transferred to the State. A subsequent administrative failure to deposit compensation in court does not produce divesting; the vesting cannot be undone by such a failure.

The substantive doctrine has important institutional implications. Land that has been substantively acquired through the taking of possession is part of the State's substantive infrastructure; subjecting it to potential lapse on the basis of subsequent administrative failures would produce substantial institutional uncertainty.

The overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation

The fourth thread is the explicit overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation. The Bench held that the disjunctive reading the earlier disposition had adopted was substantively incorrect. The substantive consequences of the Pune Municipal Corporation reading — the lapse of substantial acquisitions on technical grounds — were substantively at odds with the broader institutional architecture the 2013 Act had constructed.

The deemed lapse under Section 24(2) operates only where neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid. Where the acquisition authority has substantively engaged with either dimension, there is no lapse.

The operational architecture

For practitioners advising on land-acquisition matters, the Indore Development Authority framework has the following operational dimensions.

For acquisition authorities

The substantive direction supports the operational position of acquisition authorities. Land acquisitions where possession has been taken — even where compensation has not been formally deposited — are not exposed to the deemed lapse on substantive grounds. The framework supports:

• Operational continuity for acquired land that is being substantively used by the State.
• Substantive engagement with the compensation question where the affected landowners have declined to accept compensation.
• Documentation of compliance with the substantive payment requirements through tendering of compensation.

For affected landowners

The framework's substantive consequence is that the lapse strategy — substantively refusing compensation in order to trigger the deemed lapse — is no longer available. The substantive engagement with the acquisition must proceed on other grounds:

• Substantive challenge to the acquisition through the substantive review framework.
• Substantive engagement with the compensation amount through the framework's appellate architecture.
• Substantive engagement with rehabilitation and resettlement through the 2013 Act's substantive framework.

For commercial and infrastructure clients

For clients whose operations engage land that has been the subject of land-acquisition disputes, the framework provides substantive certainty:

• Title certainty for land acquired under the 1894 Act framework where possession has been taken.
• Substantive engagement with the institutional architecture of the 2013 Act for any new acquisitions.
• Risk allocation in commercial and infrastructure structuring with reference to the substantive land-acquisition architecture.

The subsequent doctrinal trajectory

The Indore Development Authority framework has been the operative reference across the post-2020 period. Subsequent dispositions have engaged with specific applications of the framework, but the substantive doctrinal architecture has remained the operative architecture.

The doctrinal architecture has been substantively reaffirmed in subsequent dispositions — including the various land-acquisition matters that have engaged the framework across the post-2020 period. The substantive direction is now settled; the operational architecture continues to engage specific applications.

What practitioners should track

For practitioners engaged with land-acquisition matters, the operational architecture engages:

• The substantive provisions of the 2013 Act — the broader framework that operates around Section 24(2).
• The Indore Development Authority doctrinal architecture — for the substantive construction of Section 24(2).
• The institutional architecture for compensation tendering and payment — supporting substantive compliance.
• The State-specific frameworks — various States have engaged with the 2013 Act through specific implementation frameworks.

What the disposition did not address

It is worth being precise about the boundary.

• The disposition addressed the construction of Section 24(2). It did not foreclose substantive engagement with the broader 2013 Act framework — including the substantive review framework, the appellate architecture, and the substantive engagement with rehabilitation and resettlement.
• The disposition did not address the substantive question of whether specific acquisitions are otherwise constitutionally defensible. The substantive constitutional review of land acquisitions continues to engage the broader doctrinal architecture.
• The disposition did not engage substantively with the policy question of whether the lapse framework, even as restructured, is substantively appropriate. The policy question continues to be engaged through political and institutional processes.

The bottom line

Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal is the foundational constitutional engagement with Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. The 2020 Constitution Bench overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and substantially restructured the doctrinal architecture: the "or" between possession-taken and compensation-paid is to be read as "nor"; the deemed lapse operates only where both conditions are unmet; tendering of compensation satisfies the requirement of payment; vested land cannot be divested by a subsequent administrative failure. For practitioners advising in land-acquisition matters in 2026, the framework is the operative doctrinal architecture. The substantive engagement with specific applications continues, but the foundational architecture is settled.

---

Verify against the reported judgment. The doctrinal framework continues to engage specific applications across subsequent dispositions; the foundational architecture is the Indore Development Authority disposition.