Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Delhi Development Authority vs. Amit Jain (24 February 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2023

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1360 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 4000 of 2023) (@ Diary No. 25773 of 2022)

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed if the authorities have taken possession of the land but have not paid compensation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, clarifying the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This case involved a dispute over the acquisition of land by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and whether the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the acquisition of land belonging to the respondents by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The land in question is located in Delhi and comprises several plots with different Khasra numbers. The High Court of Delhi had ruled that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, because the compensation was not paid to the landowners. The DDA appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court.

The Delhi Development Authority initiated acquisition of land measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas in Khasra Nos. 10/20/2/1 (2-00) and 21/1 (1-18) and 17/1 (1-9) and land measuring 1 bigha and 9 biswas in Khasra No. 17/1/1 (2-01). The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) stated that physical possession was taken on 29.01.2010, except for 3 biswa of land in Khasra No. 17/1/1 due to existing construction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by the landowners, declaring that the entire acquisition of the land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The High Court based its decision on the fact that compensation had not been paid to the landowners, citing the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.

Legal Framework

The core of the legal issue lies in the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Section 24(2) states:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said Act has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed.”

The Supreme Court has to interpret the word “or” used in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The court also considered Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which deals with payment of compensation and Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which deals with taking possession of land.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

• Appellant (Delhi Development Authority):
  • The DDA argued that the physical possession of the land was taken on 29.01.2010, except for a small portion where construction existed.
  • They contended that the High Court erred in applying the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation, as the facts of the present case were different.
  • The DDA relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified that taking physical possession by drawing a panchnama is sufficient compliance.
  • The DDA argued that since possession was taken, the acquisition should not be deemed to have lapsed, even if compensation was not paid.
• Respondent (Landowners):
  • The landowners disputed the actual taking of possession, stating that it was done merely by drawing up proceedings.
  • They argued that since compensation had not been paid, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
  • They relied on the High Court’s decision, which favored their position.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issue:

1. Whether the acquisition of land should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, when physical possession of the land has been taken but compensation has not been paid?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, stating that the facts were different.
• The Supreme Court relied on the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, to hold that taking over physical possession by drawing the panchnama/possession proceedings is sufficient compliance.
• The Supreme Court interpreted Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, to hold that the word “or” between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or “and”.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 and the precedent set in Indore Development Authority. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that for a lapse to occur, both possession must not be taken and compensation must not be paid. The fact that possession was taken on 29.01.2010, except for a small portion of land, was a critical factor in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, and held that the word “or” in the provision should be read as “nor” or “and”. This interpretation was based on the precedent set in Indore Development Authority. The Court rejected the argument that the acquisition should lapse due to non-payment of compensation, as the possession was already taken. The Court also considered the factual position of the case, where the possession was taken by drawing the panchnama, which was held to be sufficient.

“The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”.”

“The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid.”

“In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that for land acquisition to lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, both physical possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid.
• The word “or” in Section 24(2) is to be read as “nor” or “and.”
• Taking physical possession by drawing a panchnama is sufficient compliance.
• If possession has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse even if compensation has not been paid.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The appeal was allowed with no costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, has to be read as “nor” or “and”. The court clarified that if possession of the land has been taken, the acquisition will not lapse under Section 24(2) even if the compensation has not been paid. This is a change from the previous position of law where non-payment of compensation could lead to lapsing of acquisition proceedings. This judgment reaffirms the position of law as set in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. Amit Jain & Ors. clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings would not lapse if the authorities had taken physical possession of the land, even if the compensation had not been paid. This decision provides clarity on the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings can be deemed to have lapsed, emphasizing the importance of taking physical possession of the land.

Category

Parent Category: Land Acquisition Law

Child Categories:

• Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
• Lapse of Land Acquisition
• Physical Possession
• Payment of Compensation
• Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal
• Delhi Development Authority

Parent Category: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Child Categories:

• Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

FAQ

Q: What does Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 say?

A: Section 24(2) states that if an award was made five years or more before the commencement of the Act, and either physical possession was not taken or compensation was not paid, the land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.

Q: What did the Supreme Court clarify about the word “or” in Section 24(2)?

A: The Supreme Court clarified that the word “or” should be read as “nor” or “and”. This means that the proceedings lapse only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid.

Q: What if the authorities have taken possession of the land but not paid compensation?

A: According to the Supreme Court, if the authorities have taken possession of the land, the acquisition proceedings will not lapse even if compensation has not been paid.

Q: What is the significance of the Indore Development Authority case in this judgment?

A: The Supreme Court relied on the Indore Development Authority case to clarify that taking physical possession by drawing a panchnama is sufficient compliance for the purpose of Section 24(2).

Q: What is the practical implication of this judgment for landowners?

A: This judgment clarifies that if the government has taken possession of your land, the acquisition will not lapse even if compensation has not been paid. Landowners need to be aware of this when claiming lapse of acquisition.