Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Delhi Development Authority vs. Bhagi Singh and Ors. (20 January 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 366 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) NO. 1507 OF 2023) (@ DIARY NO. 3379 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 not paid compensation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case concerning the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court clarified that if possession of the land has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse even if compensation has not been paid. This judgment settles a key point of law regarding land acquisition and its lapse. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land acquisition dispute concerning land in Khasra No. 28. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) initiated acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) stated that the DDA took possession of the land on 21 March 2007. The High Court of Delhi, however, declared that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because it believed that physical possession had not been taken. The DDA appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi, in Writ Petition (C) No. 8291 of 2015, ruled in favor of the landowners, stating that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The High Court’s reasoning was that physical possession of the land had not been taken by the DDA. Aggrieved by this decision, the DDA appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which 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 and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

The Supreme Court also considered the interpretation of this section as laid down in the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified various aspects of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.

Arguments

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) argued that the High Court’s decision was incorrect because the DDA had indeed taken possession of the land on 21 March 2007. The DDA relied on the panchnama and possession report as evidence of taking possession. The DDA contended that according to the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, if possession has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, even if compensation has not been paid. The DDA also argued that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.”

The respondents (landowners) argued that the DDA had not taken physical possession of the land, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. They contended that since both possession and compensation were not completed, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed. The respondents did not provide any further arguments in the judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in holding that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, given that the DDA claimed to have taken possession of the land.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court heavily relied on its Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. This case clarified the interpretation of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The court specifically referred to paragraph 366 of the judgment, which states that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” It also stated that if possession has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse, even if compensation has not been paid.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s judgment was unsustainable. The court emphasized that the possession of the land was taken by the DDA on 21 March 2007, as evidenced by the panchnama and possession report. The court stated that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be read as “nor” or “and,” as per the decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal [CITATION]. Therefore, if possession has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse even if compensation has not been paid. The Supreme Court, therefore, quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment.

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 2013 Act as clarified in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal. The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 24(2) was to prevent the lapse of acquisition proceedings if the authorities had taken possession of the land, regardless of whether compensation had been paid. The court also focused on the factual aspect that the DDA had indeed taken possession of the land in 2007.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court rejected the argument that both possession and compensation must be completed for the acquisition not to lapse. The court relied on the Indore Development Authority case to interpret “or” as “nor” or “and” in the context of Section 24(2). The court also relied on the factual evidence that the DDA had taken possession of the land in 2007. The court stated:

“Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, more particularly, when the possession of the land in question is held to have been taken over by the DDA through LAC/ L&B Department on 21.03.2007 by drawing the panchnama and preparing the possession report, which is held to be permissible as observed and held by this court in the aforesaid decision.”

The court also stated:

“Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.”

The court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and the factual evidence of possession taken by the DDA. The court concluded that the High Court’s decision was incorrect and therefore quashed the same.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ If possession of land has been taken by the authorities, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, even if compensation has not been paid.
• ✓ The word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.”
• ✓ The mode of taking possession is by drawing an inquest report/memorandum.
• ✓ This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) and provides clarity on the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.
• ✓ Landowners cannot claim a lapse in acquisition if possession has been taken, even if they have not received compensation.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that if the authorities have taken possession of the land, the land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, even if compensation has not been paid. This judgment reinforces the position of law established in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, clarifying the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. There is no change in the previous position of law; rather, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the previous position.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The court clarified that if possession of the land has been taken, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, even if compensation has not been paid. This decision reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and provides clarity on the conditions for the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.

FAQ