Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Lapse Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Subhash Jain (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 02 December 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 1644

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed if the authorities could not take possession of the land due to pending legal challenges by the landowners? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, clarifying the scope of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This case revolved around whether the failure to take possession due to ongoing litigation initiated by the landowners would result in the automatic lapse of acquisition proceedings. The bench comprised of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The Government of NCT of Delhi initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The original landowners challenged these proceedings, leading to a series of legal battles that ultimately reached the Supreme Court. The core issue was whether the land acquisition proceedings 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, given that possession of the land had not been taken. The landowners argued that since possession had not been taken and compensation had not been paid, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed. The Government of NCT of Delhi contended that the delay in taking possession was due to the landowners’ own legal challenges, and therefore, the lapse provision should not apply.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi, in Writ Petition (C) No. 2709 of 2015, ruled in favor of the landowners, 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 heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183. The High Court did not consider the fact that the delay in taking possession was due to the landowners’ legal challenges. Aggrieved by this decision, the Government of NCT of Delhi appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in question is 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 has interpreted this provision in the context of whether the delay in taking possession was due to the inaction of the authorities or due to legal challenges by the landowners. The Court also considered its previous ruling in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified several aspects of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.

Arguments

Appellant (Government of NCT of Delhi) Arguments:

• The primary argument of the Government of NCT of Delhi was that the High Court had erred in applying Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
• The appellant contended that the delay in taking possession was not due to the inaction of the authorities but due to the pending legal challenges initiated by the landowners themselves.
• The Government argued that the landowners cannot benefit from their own actions that prevented the authorities from taking possession.
• The appellant relied on the decision of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2).

Respondent (Landowners) Arguments:

• The landowners argued that since the physical possession of the land had not been taken and compensation had not been paid, the land acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• They relied on the High Court’s decision, which was based on the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.
• The landowners contended that the statute should be interpreted literally, and the absence of possession and payment should lead to the lapse of acquisition proceedings.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 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 the delay in taking possession was due to pending legal challenges by the landowners.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 – This case was relied upon by the High Court to declare the acquisition proceedings lapsed. However, the Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating that it did not consider the situation where the delay was due to the landowners’ actions.
• Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 – The Supreme Court relied heavily on this Constitution Bench decision, which clarified various aspects of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The Court highlighted that this case held that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-possession and non-payment are required for a lapse. It also clarified that if the delay in taking possession was due to landowners’ actions, the lapse provision would not apply.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – This provision was the central focus of the case. The Court interpreted this section in light of the facts and the principles laid down in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The Court considered the provisions of this Act in the context of the transition to the 2013 Act.

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 it did not consider the situation where the delay was due to the landowners’ actions.
• The Supreme Court relied heavily on 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.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that a party cannot benefit from their own wrong. The Court emphasized that the delay in taking possession was a direct result of the legal challenges initiated by the landowners. The Court also relied on its previous 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 means that both non-possession and non-payment are required for the lapse provision to apply. The Court also highlighted that the purpose of Section 24(2) was to address the inaction of authorities and not to reward landowners who had deliberately delayed the acquisition process through legal challenges. The court also considered the fact that the landowners had failed in challenging the acquisition proceedings up to the Supreme Court.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The Court reasoned that the delay in taking possession was not due to the inaction of the authorities but due to the legal challenges initiated by the landowners themselves. The Court stated that the landowners cannot benefit from their own actions that prevented the authorities from taking possession. The Court relied on the interpretation of Section 24(2) as clarified in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, where it was held that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” The Court also emphasized that Section 24(2) was intended to address the inaction of authorities and not to reward landowners who had deliberately delayed the acquisition process through legal challenges. The Court also noted that the original landowners had failed in challenging the acquisition proceedings up to the Supreme Court. The Court quoted from the judgment:

“Under the circumstances, when due to pendency of the land acquisition proceedings, the possession could not be taken over, thereafter, it will not be open for the landowners to contend that as the possession was not taken over, the land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.”

“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 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

• Land acquisition proceedings will not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if the delay in taking possession is due to legal challenges initiated by the landowners.
• The word “or” in Section 24(2) is to be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-possession and non-payment are required for a lapse.
• Landowners cannot benefit from their own actions that prevent the authorities from taking possession of the land.
• The purpose of Section 24(2) is to address the inaction of the authorities and not to reward landowners who have deliberately delayed the acquisition process through legal challenges.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court’s judgment and allowing the appeal. The pending application, if any, was also disposed of.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, will not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if the delay in taking possession is due to the landowners’ own legal challenges. This judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) as clarified in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, that the word “or” should be read as “nor” or “and,” and that the provision is intended to address the inaction of authorities, not to reward landowners for delaying the process. This case clarifies that the lapse provision is not applicable when the delay is due to the landowners’ actions and not due to the inaction of authorities.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Subhash Jain and Ors. clarifies that land acquisition proceedings will not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if the delay in taking possession is due to legal challenges initiated by the landowners. The Court emphasized that landowners cannot benefit from their own actions that prevent the authorities from taking possession. This decision reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 and provides clarity on the application of the lapse provision in cases where delays are caused by the landowners themselves.

Category:

Parent Category: Land Acquisition Law

• Child Category: Section 24, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
• Child Category: Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings
• Child Category: Possession of Land
• Child Category: Compensation
• Child Category: Interpretation of Statutes
• Child Category: Supreme Court Judgments on Land Acquisition

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

• Child Category: Section 24, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Parent Category: Land Acquisition Act, 1894

• Child Category: Land Acquisition Act, 1894

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 land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, will lapse if an award was made five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, and if physical possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid.

Q: What did the Supreme Court clarify about Section 24(2) in this case?

A: The Supreme Court clarified that the lapse provision under Section 24(2) does not apply if the delay in taking possession of the land is due to legal challenges initiated by the landowners themselves.

Q: What does the Supreme Court mean by stating that the word “or” should be read as “nor” or “and” in Section 24(2)?

A: The Supreme Court clarified that for the acquisition to lapse under Section 24(2), both the possession of the land should not be taken and the compensation should not be paid. If either of these conditions are fulfilled, then the acquisition will not lapse.

Q: Can landowners benefit from their own actions that delay the land acquisition process?

A: No, the Supreme Court held that landowners cannot benefit from their own actions that prevent the authorities from taking possession of the land. The lapse provision is not meant to reward such delays.

Q: What was the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?

A: The main reason was that the delay in taking possession was due to the landowners’ legal challenges and not due to the inaction of the authorities. The Court also relied on the interpretation of Section 24(2) as clarified in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.