Land Acquisition: Supreme Court clarifies government’s power in Jayamma & Ors. vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hassan (2013)

Case Background

The appellants, residents of Mukundur village in Karnataka, experienced damage to their homes due to seepage from a nearby irrigation canal. They requested the government to acquire their properties. The government had previously decided to acquire the land due to the seepage issue. The Land Acquisition Officer initiated proceedings under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 27.10.2007, followed by a Section 6 declaration on 15.10.2008, published on 23.10.2008. However, the acquisition process was not completed within the statutory period.

The petitioners approached the High Court of Karnataka in 2011, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Land Acquisition Officer to complete the acquisition. They asked the court to direct the authorities to pass an award based on the government’s decision dated 19.11.2009. The High Court initially directed the authorities to complete the acquisition within four weeks. However, this order was challenged in appeal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Karnataka initially directed the Land Acquisition Collector to pass awards within four weeks. However, the Land Acquisition Collector, the State, and others filed appeals against this order. The appellate bench of the High Court set aside the single judge’s order. It directed the completion of a drainage canal project instead of acquiring the land. The High Court also stated that the petitioners could initiate legal action if the seepage problem persisted. The petitioners then filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the preliminary notification for land acquisition.
• Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section concerns the declaration that the land is required for a public purpose.
• Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the inquiry and award by the Collector.
• Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section specifies that the award must be made within two years of the declaration under Section 6, failing which the acquisition proceedings lapse.
• Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section allows the government to withdraw from acquisition of land before possession is taken, with compensation for damages. The section states:

  “48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but compensation to be awarded when not completed .-(1) Except in the case provided for in section 36, the Government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of any land of which possession has not been taken.”

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the High Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the government had already decided to acquire their land due to severe seepage issues.
• They contended that the Land Acquisition Officer had initiated proceedings under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and a Section 6 declaration was also issued.
• They stated that the government was bound by its decision to acquire the land and the High Court should direct the authorities to complete the acquisition process.
• The appellants sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Land Acquisition Officer to act as per the government’s instructions.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, because the award was not passed within two years of the Section 6 declaration.
• They contended that the government was not obligated to acquire the land if it was not in the public interest.
• They argued that the seepage issue could be resolved by constructing a drainage canal, making acquisition unnecessary.
• They stated that the High Court could not compel the Land Acquisition Officer to act on the government’s instructions, especially when the proceedings had lapsed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can compel the State to complete the acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Whether a writ can be issued compelling the Land Acquisition Collector/Officer to implement the instruction issued to him by the Government otherwise than under the procedure under the Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court held that the proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were initiated, but the proceedings lapsed due to non-compliance with Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• The Court relied on Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to highlight the government’s power to withdraw from acquisition.
• The Court clarified that Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not empower the High Court to compel the government to acquire land when the proceedings have lapsed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to the failure to pass an award within the stipulated time under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court emphasized that it cannot compel the government to acquire land, especially when the statutory requirements have not been met. The Court also noted that it cannot direct a subordinate authority to follow instructions from a superior authority if it is not within the statutory framework. The Court was also sympathetic to the plight of the petitioners, who had suffered due to seepage, and awarded them compensation.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court considered the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the limitations of the High Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the High Court cannot compel the government to acquire land when the proceedings have lapsed. Additionally, the Court held that it cannot direct a subordinate authority to follow government instructions that are not within the statutory framework. The Court also considered the hardships faced by the petitioners due to seepage and provided compensation.

The Court rejected the argument that the government was bound to acquire the land, stating that the government has the discretion to decide whether to acquire land. The Court also rejected the argument that the High Court could compel the Land Acquisition Officer to act on government instructions, as this would be outside the statutory framework. The Court’s decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and the facts of the case.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The Court cannot compel the land acquisition collector to pass awards in respect of the land acquisition proceedings which had already lapsed.”

“It is not within the jurisdiction of the Court to compel the Government to pass an Award pursuant to Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act even when it is followed by the declaration.”

“Court is not the executing forum of the instruction issued by the Government to its subordinates.”

Key Takeaways

• The High Court cannot compel the government to acquire land if the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• The government has the discretion to withdraw from land acquisition before possession is taken, as per Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• The Court cannot compel a subordinate authority to follow government instructions if it is not within the statutory procedure.
• Even if the government has initiated acquisition proceedings, it is not obligated to complete them if they are not in the public interest or if they have lapsed.
• The Court may award compensation to individuals who have suffered due to government actions or inaction, even if the acquisition proceedings are not completed.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that each of the petitioners be paid a lump sum amount of ₹1 lakh towards damages for the hardships they have undergone due to seepage. The respondents were directed to deposit the amount in the petitioners’ bank accounts within three months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court cannot compel the government to complete land acquisition proceedings that have lapsed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. This judgment reinforces the principle that the government has the discretion to decide whether to acquire land, and the courts cannot interfere with this discretion unless it is exercised arbitrarily or illegally. This decision also clarifies that courts cannot enforce government instructions to subordinate authorities if such instructions are not within the statutory framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jayamma & Ors. vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Hassan clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s power to compel the government to complete land acquisition proceedings. The Court emphasized that the government is not obligated to acquire land if the proceedings have lapsed or if it is not in the public interest. The Court also highlighted that it cannot compel a subordinate authority to follow government instructions outside the statutory framework. While the Court did not order the acquisition of the land, it did award compensation to the petitioners for the hardships they suffered due to seepage.