LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 regarding deemed lapse of land acquisition.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: March 13, 2023
Date of the Judgment: March 13, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 220
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed if possession was not taken due to a court-ordered stay, even if compensation was not paid? The Supreme Court 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 (the “Act, 2013”). This case revolves around whether the acquisition of land should be considered lapsed due to a delay in taking possession and paying compensation. 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 dispute over land acquisition where the High Court of Delhi declared that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court’s decision was based on the fact that neither possession of the land was taken nor compensation paid. However, the Land Acquisition Collector argued that physical possession could not be taken due to a stay order issued by the court. The stay order was in effect until January 1, 2014, when the 2013 Act came into force. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 and its own decision in Gyanender Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. The Land Acquisition Collector appealed the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Prior to 01.01.2014 | Stay order issued by the court, preventing the taking of physical possession of the land. |
| 01.01.2014 | The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into effect. |
| 23.09.2014 | Decision of the High Court in the case of Gyanender Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. in W.P. (C) No. 1393/2014. |
| 2015 | Writ Petition (C) No. 3581 of 2015 filed in the High Court of Delhi. |
| 2023 | The Supreme Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal No. 482 of 2023. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition, declaring that the land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court reasoned that neither possession of the land was taken nor compensation paid. The Land Acquisition Collector appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the stay order had prevented them from taking possession.
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. This section deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings if certain conditions are not met. 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:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
The Supreme Court has interpreted this section in the context of the Constitution, ensuring that land acquisition is fair and just, balancing the rights of landowners with the needs of the state.
Arguments
- Appellant’s (Land Acquisition Collector) submissions:
- The primary argument was that the physical possession of the land could not be taken due to the operation of a stay order passed by the court.
- The stay order was in effect until January 1, 2014, when the 2013 Act came into force.
- They argued that the period during which the stay order was in effect should be excluded when calculating the five-year period for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
- Respondent’s (Landowners) submissions:
- The landowners contended that since neither possession was taken nor compensation was paid, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
- They relied on the High Court’s interpretation of Section 24(2), which did not exclude the period of stay orders.
- They also relied on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which supported the view that non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession leads to lapse.
The innovativeness of the argument was on the side of the Land Acquisition Collector, who argued that the period of stay should be excluded when calculating the five-year period for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. This argument was based on the principle that the delay was not due to the inaction of the authorities but due to a court order.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant (Land Acquisition Collector): Stay Order Prevented Possession |
|
| Respondent (Landowners): Lapse Due to Non-Compliance |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:
✓ Whether the acquisition of land should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, if possession was not taken due to a court-ordered stay, and compensation was not paid?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Whether the acquisition of land should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, if possession was not taken due to a court-ordered stay, and compensation was not paid? | The Court held that the period during which the stay order was in effect should be excluded when calculating the five-year period. Therefore, there would be no deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How the authority was used |
|---|---|---|
| Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. This case was initially relied upon by the High Court to declare a lapse of land acquisition. |
| Gyanender Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors | High Court of Delhi | The decision was deemed contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. |
| Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Constitution Bench decision which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183. The Court relied on this to hold that the period of stay should be excluded. |
| Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Parliament of India | The main provision under consideration, which deals with the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s (Land Acquisition Collector) submission: The period of stay should be excluded from the five-year period. | The Court accepted this submission, holding that the period during which the stay order was in effect should be excluded when calculating the five-year period for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
| Respondent’s (Landowners) submission: Acquisition should be deemed lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the non-taking of possession was due to the stay order, and the period of the stay order should be excluded. |
Authorities:
✓ Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183*: This case was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
✓ Gyanender Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors: The decision of the High Court was held to be contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
✓ Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129: The Court relied on this Constitution Bench decision to hold that the period of stay should be excluded.
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, in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Court emphasized that the lapse of land acquisition proceedings should not occur when the delay in taking possession is due to a court-ordered stay. The Court’s reasoning focused on ensuring fairness and preventing the lapse of acquisition due to circumstances beyond the control of the authorities. The Court also considered the fact that the stay order was in effect until the commencement of the 2013 Act, which further supported the exclusion of the stay period.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act | 40% |
| Reliance on Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | 30% |
| Exclusion of stay order period | 20% |
| Fairness and prevention of lapse due to circumstances beyond control | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal interpretation (70%), while considering the factual circumstances (30%) of the stay order.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the acquisition of land would not be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, because the delay in taking possession was due to a court-ordered stay. The Court emphasized that the period of the stay order must be excluded when calculating the five-year period for deemed lapse.
Key quotes from the judgment:
“…the High Court has declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed on the ground that neither the possession of the land in question was taken nor the compensation has been tendered/paid…”
“In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed…the word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”.”
“…there shall be no deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.”
Key Takeaways
- The period during which a court-ordered stay is in effect must be excluded when calculating the five-year period for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
- Land acquisition proceedings will not be deemed to have lapsed if the delay in taking possession was due to a stay order.
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 is the governing law on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment, dismissing the original writ petition. The Court declared that there would be no deemed lapse of the acquisition of land under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the period during which a court-ordered stay is in effect must be excluded when calculating the five-year period for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) and reinforces the principles established in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. This decision effectively overrules the previous position taken in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which did not account for the exclusion of stay periods.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Land Acquisition Collector & Anr. vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors. clarifies that the period of a court-ordered stay must be excluded when calculating the five-year period for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. This decision ensures that land acquisition proceedings are not unfairly deemed to have lapsed due to circumstances beyond the control of the authorities. The judgment reinforces the principles established in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 and provides clarity on the interpretation of Section 24(2).