LEGAL ISSUE: Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 if possession is taken but compensation is not paid.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs. Shakuntla Devi and Ors.
Judgment Date: 20 January 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 342 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 11767 of 2019)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed if the government takes possession of the land but fails to pay compensation to the landowner? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Delhi Development Authority. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, specifically whether the word “or” between possession and compensation should be interpreted as “and” or “nor”. This judgment clarifies the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings can be deemed to have lapsed.
The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case involves a land acquisition initiated by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on June 27, 1996. The award for compensation was passed on June 22, 1999. According to the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), the actual vacant possession of the land was taken on December 31, 2013, and handed over to the requisition agency. The original writ petitioner, Shakuntla Devi, had a 1/4th share in the land.
Despite the LAC’s claim of taking possession, the High Court of Delhi ruled that the acquisition had lapsed because compensation had not been paid to the original writ petitioner. The High Court did not dispute the fact that possession was taken by the LAC on December 31, 2013.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 27 June 1996 | Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued. |
| 22 June 1999 | Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. |
| 31 December 2013 | Actual vacant possession of the land taken by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to the requisition agency. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by Shakuntla Devi, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court’s decision was based on the fact that compensation had not been paid to the petitioner, despite the fact that possession was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the Delhi Development Authority appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
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 Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with payment of compensation.
Arguments
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) argued that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The DDA contended that the High Court failed to consider the fact that possession of the land was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) on 31.12.2013 and handed over to the requisition agency.
The DDA relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” This interpretation means that land acquisition proceedings would only lapse if both possession was not taken and compensation was not paid.
The original writ petitioner, Shakuntla Devi, argued that since compensation was not paid to her, the land acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. She contended that the High Court had rightly held that non-payment of compensation leads to the lapse of acquisition proceedings.
The petitioner’s argument was based on a literal interpretation of Section 24(2), emphasizing the word “or” between possession and compensation.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| DDA’s Submission |
✓ The High Court failed to consider that possession of the land was taken on 31.12.2013. ✓ Relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 to argue that “or” should be read as “nor” or “and”. |
| Shakuntla Devi’s Submission |
✓ Since compensation was not paid, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed. ✓ Literal interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, emphasizing the word “or”. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, due to non-payment of compensation, despite the fact that possession of the land was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation, despite possession being taken? | The Supreme Court, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, held that the word “or” in Section 24(2) must be read as “nor” or “and.” Therefore, since possession was taken, the proceedings did not lapse, even if compensation was not paid. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court primarily relied on the following authority:
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | The Supreme Court followed the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as laid down by the Constitution Bench. The court emphasized that the word “or” between possession and compensation in Section 24(2) must be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that land acquisition proceedings would lapse only if both possession was not taken and compensation was not paid. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| DDA’s submission that the High Court failed to consider that possession was taken. | The Court accepted this submission, noting that the High Court did not dispute the taking of possession by the LAC on 31.12.2013. |
| DDA’s reliance on Indore Development Authority judgment. | The Court upheld this submission, applying the interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in the Indore Development Authority case. |
| Shakuntla Devi’s submission that non-payment of compensation leads to lapse of acquisition. | The Court rejected this submission, holding that since possession was taken, non-payment of compensation does not lead to lapse of acquisition proceedings based on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as laid down in the Indore Development Authority case. |
The Supreme Court considered the following authority:
✓ Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129: The Supreme Court relied on this Constitution Bench judgment, which clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that land acquisition proceedings would lapse only if both possession was not taken and compensation was not paid.
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 by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to prevent the lapse of acquisition proceedings where the authorities had taken possession of the land, even if compensation had not been paid. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the need to ensure that concluded proceedings are not reopened, and that landowners who have refused to accept compensation or sought higher compensation cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Interpretation of Section 24(2) as “nor” or “and” | 40% |
| Reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority | 30% |
| Prevention of reopening concluded proceedings | 20% |
| Ensuring landowners who refused compensation cannot claim lapse | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Supreme Court, in its reasoning, emphasized the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as laid down in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. The court highlighted that the word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and.” The court stated that 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.
The Court noted that in the present case, the High Court had not disputed the taking over of possession by the LAC and handing it over to the beneficiary by drawing the panchnama on the spot on 31.12.2013. The Court observed that the High Court had erroneously declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that the compensation has not been paid/tendered to the original writ petitioner.
The Court also stated that 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 further stated that in case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court.
The Court quoted from the judgment in Indore Development Authority:
“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 Court also quoted:
“The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.”
Key Takeaways
✓ Land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if possession of the land has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid.
✓ The word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act must be interpreted as “nor” or “and”.
✓ The obligation to pay compensation is complete when the amount is tendered under Section 31(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
✓ Landowners who refuse to accept compensation or seek higher compensation cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case, other than setting aside the judgment of the High Court.
Development of Law
The judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. It clarifies that the word “or” between possession and compensation in Section 24(2) must be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that land acquisition proceedings lapse only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid. This interpretation prevents the reopening of concluded proceedings and ensures that landowners who have refused to accept compensation or sought higher compensation cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the land acquisition proceedings had not lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because possession of the land had been taken by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) must be read as “nor” or “and,” as clarified by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.