Most acquisitions affecting farmland today run under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Many older ones began under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and questions about them — has it lapsed, can the State still take it, what was the land worth — keep reaching the courts, including in Jaipur.
The short answer
- An old 1894-Act acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act only if the State neither took possession nor paid compensation (Indore Development Authority, 2020).
- Urgency that skips the owners’ hearing is an exception courts can scrutinise (Radhy Shyam, 2011); under the 2013 Act it is limited to defence, national security and emergencies.
- Land acquired for one purpose and handed to builders for another was held a colourable exercise of power (Greater Noida, 2011).
- A purchase made after the acquisition notification is void against the State (RIICO v. Subhash Sindhi, 2013, a Jaipur case).
- Valuation: comparable sales, adjusted, under the 1894 Act (Chimanlal; Lal Chand); under the 2013 Act guideline rates are the starting point (Vincent Daniel, 2025).
- NotificationThe land is identified. A purchase after it is a trap.
- ObjectionsOwners are heard before a final declaration.
- AwardThe Collector’s award is only an offer.
- Possession and paymentWhether both happened decides lapse.
- Reference or appealThe route to contest the amount, within time.
Has an old acquisition lapsed?
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act gave owners a way out of old acquisitions that had stalled. How far it reaches was settled by a Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (6 March 2020): an acquisition begun under the 1894 Act lapses only if the State has neither taken possession nor paid compensation. Tendering compensation counts as payment, and possession can be shown by a panchnama. The earlier view in Pune Municipal Corporation (2014), under which many lapse claims had succeeded, was overruled.
Lapse still happens where both conditions are met. On 27 May 2026 a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court held that a Jaipur Development Authority acquisition in Jaipur tehsil (notification 1991, award 1995) had lapsed because possession was never taken and compensation never paid. It also held that the land remains agricultural, so any other use still needs conversion under Section 90-A. And in S.V. Global Mill (February 2026) the Supreme Court held that where an acquisition begun under the 1894 Act had no award before the 2013 Act came into force, compensation is decided under the 2013 Act.
Urgency and the owners’ hearing
Under the 1894 Act the State could invoke urgency and skip the Section 5A hearing of objections. In Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P. (15 April 2011) the Court held that this is an exception courts can scrutinise, and that a general plan for industrial development did not by itself justify it. The landowners won, though the State was left free to restart after hearing them. In Greater Noida v. Devendra Kumar (6 July 2011) the Court refused to disturb the quashing of an urgency acquisition in Shahberi village where land taken for industry had largely been handed to builders for housing.
Urgency does not always fail. In Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan (1993), a Jaipur-area case under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, the Court upheld an urgency acquisition for housing because there was material on which the government could fairly be satisfied. Under Section 40(2) of the 2013 Act, urgency powers are now limited to defence, national security and emergencies such as natural calamities.
Buying land that is under acquisition
This is the trap that catches buyers. In RIICO v. Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society (2013), another Jaipur case, the Court held that a purchase made after the Section 4 notification is void against the State: the buyer cannot challenge the acquisition and can only claim compensation. An unregistered agreement to sell gave no standing at all, and land can be released only before possession is taken. A companion case decided the same day, RIICO v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation, is a reminder for industrial allottees that land accepted “as is where is” comes with the lease terms, not with a road the lease never promised.
How acquired farmland is valued
Under the 1894 Act, the Collector’s award is only an offer. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas (1988) the Court held that market value is what a willing buyer would pay on the notification date, worked out from comparable sales adjusted for size, road frontage, shape and location. In Lal Chand v. Union of India (2009) it held that the price of small developed plots cannot simply be applied to a large area of undeveloped farmland without a suitable deduction for development. But in Vincent Daniel (27 March 2025) the Court held that this deduction method belongs to the 1894 Act: under the 2013 Act, guideline rates are the starting point and can be adjusted only for recorded reasons.
Equality and delay also matter. Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao (1972) held that the State cannot pay one owner less than a similarly placed owner merely by using a different statute; in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (4 February 2025) the Court refused to limit solatium and interest for highway acquisitions made between 1997 and 2015. In Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz (2 January 2025), where compensation had been delayed for about two decades, the Court used Article 142 to value the land at a later date — an exceptional remedy, not a general right. And in Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana (April 2025) it condoned a long delay in the owners’ appeal but barred interest for the delayed period.
The judgments behind this guide
Each links to its full entry in the land judgments register, with the bench, the citation, where the ruling stands today and the sources.
- Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao — Supreme Court, 11 December 1972. Good law.
- Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona — Supreme Court, 21 July 1988. Good law.
- Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan — Supreme Court, 27 January 1993. Good law.
- Lal Chand v. Union of India — Supreme Court, 12 August 2009. Good law.
- Radhy Shyam v. State of Uttar Pradesh — Supreme Court, 15 April 2011. Good law.
- Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Devendra Kumar — Supreme Court, 6 July 2011. Good law.
- RIICO v. Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society — Supreme Court, 12 February 2013. Good law.
- RIICO v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation — Supreme Court, 12 February 2013. Good law.
- Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki — Supreme Court, 24 January 2014. Overruled — history only.
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal — Supreme Court, 6 March 2020. Good law.
- Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. Government of Karnataka — Supreme Court, 2 January 2025. Good law.
Recent rulings, 2025–2026
- 27 May 2026 · Rajasthan High Court — Rajasthan HC: old JDA acquisition in Jaipur lapsed; conversion still needs Section 90-A. What it means and the source
- 9 February 2026 · Supreme Court of India — SC: old acquisitions awarded after 2013 Act follow it; late appeals can be condoned. What it means and the source
- 23 April 2025 · Supreme Court of India — SC: long delay in appeal is no reason to deny landowners fair compensation. What it means and the source
- 27 March 2025 · Supreme Court of India — SC: no automatic 'development deduction' when valuing land under the 2013 Act. What it means and the source
- 4 February 2025 · Supreme Court of India — SC: 1997-2015 highway land acquisitions must carry solatium and interest. What it means and the source
What to check before you buy
- Before buying, check whether the khasra falls in any notified acquisition, road alignment or development-authority scheme. A purchase after the notification can be void against the State.
- If land was notified long ago, find out whether possession was taken and compensation paid. Only a court or an official finding settles whether it has lapsed.
- Even where an acquisition has lapsed, non-agricultural use still needs conversion under Section 90-A.
- If the land was partly acquired before, keep the award and payment papers. Compensation claims have limitation periods, and delay can cost interest.
Tools that help: Master plans in Rajasthan · Land and infrastructure news desk · The 2013 Act, in the Academy encyclopaedia · Solatium, in the Academy encyclopaedia
What this guide cannot tell you
Compensation depends on the statute, the dates and the evidence of comparable sales in each case, and this page gives no figures. Whether a particular acquisition has lapsed is decided on the official record of possession and payment.
FAQ · अक्सर पूछे सवाल
When does an old land acquisition lapse?
Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as the Constitution Bench read it in Indore Development Authority (2020), an acquisition begun under the 1894 Act lapses only if the State has neither taken possession nor paid compensation. Tendering compensation counts as payment.
Can I buy land that has already been notified for acquisition?
It is a trap. In RIICO v. Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society (2013), a Jaipur case, the Supreme Court held that a purchase made after the Section 4 notification is void against the State; the buyer cannot challenge the acquisition and can only claim compensation.
How is compensation for acquired farmland worked out?
Under the 1894 Act, courts value land by what a willing buyer would pay on the notification date, from comparable sales adjusted for plus and minus factors (Chimanlal Hargovinddas, 1988). Under the 2013 Act, the Supreme Court held in Vincent Daniel (2025) that guideline rates are the starting point and cannot be cut by a routine development deduction.
Sources
- Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao — Judgment text · Indian Kanoon.
- Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona — Judgment text · Indian Kanoon.
- Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan — Judgment text · Indian Kanoon.
- Lal Chand v. Union of India — Judgment text · Indian Kanoon.
- Radhy Shyam v. State of Uttar Pradesh — Judgment text · Indian Kanoon.
- Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Devendra Kumar — Case record · ECOLEX.
- RIICO v. Subhash Sindhi Co-operative Housing Society — Judgment text · Indian Kanoon.
- RIICO v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation — Judgment text · Indian Kanoon.
- Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki — Judgment text · Indian Kanoon.
- Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal — Judgment text · Indian Kanoon.
- Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. Government of Karnataka — Supreme Court copy.