Date of the Judgment: March 13, 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 226
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed if the authorities have not taken possession or paid compensation? The Supreme Court 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. This judgment clarifies the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be considered lapsed under the 2013 Act. 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 award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was made on June 19, 1992. The Land Acquisition Collector claimed that possession of the land was taken on April 21, 2006, and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The High Court of Delhi, relying on a previous Supreme Court decision, ruled that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. This ruling was challenged by the Land Acquisition Collector.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 19, 1992 | Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made. |
| April 21, 2006 | Land Acquisition Collector claimed possession of land was taken and handed over to DDA. |
| 2013 | The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force. |
| 2015 | Writ Petition (C) No. 2916 of 2015 filed in the High Court of Delhi. |
| March 13, 2023 | Supreme Court judgment delivered. |
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, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183. The Land Acquisition Collector appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core of the dispute revolves around Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This section addresses situations where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but have not been completed. 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 also considered the following:
- Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with the making of an award.
- Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which pertains to taking possession of land after an award is made.
- Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which outlines the payment of compensation.
Arguments
The appellants (Land Acquisition Collector) argued that the possession of the land had been taken on April 21, 2006, and handed over to the DDA. They contended that the High Court erred in applying the ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation as it had been overruled.
The respondents (landowners), on the other hand, relied on the High Court’s judgment which stated that since possession was not taken and compensation was not paid as per Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the acquisition proceedings should lapse.
| Submissions | Appellants (Land Acquisition Collector) | Respondents (Landowners) |
|---|---|---|
| Main Submission 1 | Possession of the land was taken on April 21, 2006, and handed over to the DDA. | Acquisition proceedings should lapse as possession was not taken and compensation was not paid as per Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
| Main Submission 2 | The High Court erred in applying the ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation as it had been overruled. | Relied on the High Court’s judgment which stated that since possession was not taken and compensation was not paid as per Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the acquisition proceedings should lapse. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether 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, given the facts of the case and the legal interpretations of the relevant provisions.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. | The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed. It emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation should be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that for a lapse to occur, both possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid. Since, in this case, possession was taken, there was no lapse. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 – High Court relied on this case.
- Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 – Constitution Bench decision that overruled Pune Municipal Corporation.
- Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353 – Overruled by Indore Development Authority.
- Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412] – Overruled on specific point by Indore Development Authority.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled by Indore Development Authority. |
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to interpret Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
| Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled by Indore Development Authority. |
| Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412] | Supreme Court of India | Overruled on specific point by Indore Development Authority. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Possession of the land was taken on April 21, 2006, and handed over to the DDA. | Accepted as factual basis for decision. |
| The High Court erred in applying the ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation as it had been overruled. | Accepted. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation was incorrect as it had been overruled by Indore Development Authority. |
| Acquisition proceedings should lapse as possession was not taken and compensation was not paid as per Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. | Rejected. The Supreme Court clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both conditions (non-possession and non-payment of compensation) must be met for the proceedings to lapse. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 | Overruled. The Supreme Court clarified that the High Court’s reliance on this case was incorrect as it had been overruled by Indore Development Authority. |
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Relied upon. The Supreme Court applied the principles laid down in this Constitution Bench decision to interpret 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 the Indore Development Authority judgment. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in the provision must be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for a lapse to occur. The factual assertion of the Land Acquisition Collector that possession was taken was also a key factor.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as clarified in Indore Development Authority | 60% |
| Factual assertion of the Land Acquisition Collector that possession was taken | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Issue: Did the land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Was the award made five years or more before the 2013 Act?
Was possession not taken AND compensation not paid?
Possession was taken.
Conclusion: No lapse under Section 24(2).
The Court reasoned that the High Court had incorrectly applied the law by relying on the overruled decision of Pune Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority had clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2), stating that the word “or” should be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation must occur for the acquisition to lapse.
The Supreme Court stated:
“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.”
The court further clarified:
“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 noted:
“Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).”
Key Takeaways
- The word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, should be read as “nor” or “and.”
- Land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid.
- If possession has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse, even if compensation has not been paid.
- The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, should be interpreted as “nor” or “and,” meaning both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for a deemed lapse. This clarifies the position of law and overrules the previous interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Land Acquisition Collector vs. B.S. Dhillon clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, emphasizing that for land acquisition proceedings to lapse, both possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid. This decision overrules the earlier interpretation and provides a clear guideline for future cases.
Category
Parent Category: Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Child Category: Section 11, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Child Category: Section 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Child Category: Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
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: Supreme Court Judgments
Child Category: Land Acquisition Law
FAQ
Q: What does Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act say?
A: Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, states that if an award was made five or more years before the Act came into force, and either possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.
Q: What did the Supreme Court clarify about the word “or” in Section 24(2)?
A: The Supreme Court clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that for a lapse to occur, both possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid.
Q: What happens if possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid?
A: If possession has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2), even if compensation has not been paid.
Q: What case was overruled by this judgment?
A: The Supreme Court clarified that the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Q: What is the impact of this judgment on land acquisition?
A: This judgment clarifies that land acquisition proceedings will not lapse if possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid. This provides clarity for authorities and landowners regarding the status of land acquisition proceedings.