Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1301 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) NO. 3854 OF 2023) (@ DIARY NO. 7205 OF 2022)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed if the compensation was not paid to the landowners, even if the possession of the land was taken by the authorities? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, clarifying the conditions under which land acquisition can lapse under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court, in this case, examined the interplay between possession and compensation in determining whether land acquisition proceedings can be deemed to have lapsed. The bench comprised of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) initiated land acquisition proceedings. The DDA claimed that it had taken possession of the lands in question on 23.09.1981 and handed it over to the beneficiary department. The compensation for the land was sent via Registered Delivery (RD) due to a dispute regarding the rightful recipients. The High Court of Delhi, relying on an earlier judgment, held that the acquisition had lapsed because the compensation was not paid to the landowners in the manner known to law. The DDA appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 23.09.1981 | DDA claims possession of the land was taken and handed over to the beneficiary department. |
| N/A | Compensation for the land was sent via Registered Delivery (RD) due to a dispute. |
| N/A | High Court of Delhi declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
| 24 February 2023 | Supreme Court of India set aside the High Court’s order, holding that the acquisition had not lapsed. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment, relied on the decision in *Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183*, to declare 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 (Act, 2013). The High Court reasoned that the compensation was not paid in the manner known to law to the land owners. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision of the High 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. This section deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129*, which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2).
Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 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 in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*, interpreted the word “or” in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation as “nor” or “and”. It held that for a deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings, both conditions (i) possession not taken and (ii) compensation not paid, must be satisfied.
Arguments
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) argued that the High Court erred in applying the judgment in *Pune Municipal Corporation* and that the correct position of law was laid down in *Indore Development Authority*. DDA contended that possession of the land was taken on 23.09.1981, and compensation was sent via RD, although it may not have been received by the landowners. Therefore, the DDA argued that the acquisition should not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
The respondent (landowners) argued that the compensation was not paid to them in the manner known to law and hence the acquisition should lapse as per Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
The innovativeness of the argument lies in the interpretation of the word “or” in the Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Delhi Development Authority (DDA) |
|
| Landowners |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in holding 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, based on the fact that compensation was not paid to the landowners in the manner known to law.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 due to non-payment of compensation in the manner known to law? | The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was incorrect. The Court stated that as per the law laid down in *Indore Development Authority*, for a deemed lapse under Section 24(2), both conditions (i) possession not taken and (ii) compensation not paid, must be satisfied. Since possession was taken, the acquisition did not lapse. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| *Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183* | Supreme Court of India | The High Court relied on this case to hold that the acquisition had lapsed. However, the Supreme Court held that this was not the correct position of law. |
| *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129* | Supreme Court of India | The Supreme Court relied on this case, which clarified that for a deemed lapse under Section 24(2), both conditions (possession not taken and compensation not paid) must be satisfied. |
| Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | N/A | The Court interpreted this provision as requiring both non-possession and non-payment of compensation for a deemed lapse. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| DDA’s submission that possession was taken and compensation was sent via RD, so the acquisition should not lapse. | The Court accepted this submission, holding that since possession was taken, the acquisition did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
| Landowners’ submission that compensation was not paid in the manner known to law and hence the acquisition should lapse. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the non-payment of compensation alone does not lead to a lapse if possession has been taken. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ The Supreme Court overruled the High Court’s reliance on *Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183*. The court stated that the correct position of law was laid down in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129*.
✓ The Supreme Court followed *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129*, which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
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, 2013, as clarified in *Indore Development Authority*. The court emphasized that the word “or” in the section should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for a deemed lapse. The court also focused on the fact that possession of the land was taken by the DDA, which was a crucial factor in its decision.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
✓ The interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as laid down in *Indore Development Authority*
✓ The fact that possession of the land was taken by the DDA on 23.09.1981
✓ The compensation was sent via RD, although not received by the landowners.
The Supreme Court prioritized the interpretation of the law as laid down in the *Indore Development Authority* case, which held that both the conditions of non-possession and non-payment of compensation must be satisfied for a deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as laid down in *Indore Development Authority* | 40% |
| Emphasis on the fact that possession of the land was taken by DDA | 35% |
| Rejection of the argument that non-payment of compensation alone leads to lapse | 25% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of law and the facts of the case. The court gave more weight to the factual aspect of the case as the possession of the land was already taken by the DDA.
The Supreme Court considered the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and the fact that possession of the land was taken by the DDA. The court rejected the argument that non-payment of compensation alone would lead to a lapse of acquisition proceedings.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from *Indore Development Authority*:
“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.”
“The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court.”
The court clarified that the non-deposit of compensation in court does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
Key Takeaways
✓ For land acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, both conditions must be met: possession of the land must not have been taken, and compensation must not have been paid.
✓ If possession of the land has been taken, the non-payment of compensation alone will not lead to a lapse of the acquisition proceedings.
✓ The word “or” in Section 24(2) is to be read as “nor” or “and”.
✓ The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, and provides guidance on when land acquisition proceedings can be deemed to have lapsed.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, both conditions, i.e., non-possession of land and non-payment of compensation, must be satisfied. The Supreme Court upheld its earlier decision in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*, thereby reiterating the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. This judgment clarifies that the word “or” in Section 24(2) has to be read as “nor” or “and”.
The Supreme Court overruled the judgment of the High Court which had relied upon the case of *Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.*, and reiterated that the correct position of law was laid down in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*
Conclusion
In the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Rajender Singh, the Supreme Court held that the acquisition of land did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because the possession of the land had been taken by the Delhi Development Authority. The court clarified that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for a deemed lapse, as per its earlier decision in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.* The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and allowed the appeal of the Delhi Development Authority.