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: Land Acquisition Collector (South East) vs. Dharamvir & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 9 December 2022
Date of the Judgment: 9 December 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 662
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed if the government has taken possession of the land but has not paid compensation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, 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”). The court had to determine whether the word “or” in the said section should be read as “and” or “nor,” thereby affecting the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings would lapse. This judgment clarifies the legal position regarding land acquisition and compensation. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The Land Acquisition Collector (South East), Delhi Government, initiated land acquisition proceedings. The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in a writ petition filed by the respondents, declared that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court relied on the fact that compensation had not been paid, despite the government having taken possession of the land on 16 March 2004. The Land Acquisition Collector, aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 16 March 2004 | Government took possession of the land. |
| 25 April 2016 | High Court of Delhi declared land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
| 9 December 2022 | Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and allowed the appeal. |
Legal Framework
The core of this case 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 if certain conditions are not met. Section 24(2) 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 key point of contention is the use of the word “or” between “possession of the land has not been taken” and “the compensation has not been paid.” The Supreme Court had to determine whether “or” should be interpreted as “and” or “nor” to decide when land acquisition proceedings would lapse.
Arguments
The Land Acquisition Collector argued that the High Court’s decision was incorrect because the Supreme Court had already clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. This ruling had overruled the previous decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which the High Court had relied upon. The Collector contended that since possession of the land was taken on 16 March 2004, the land acquisition proceedings could not be deemed to have lapsed, irrespective of whether compensation had been paid.
The landowners, on the other hand, argued that since compensation was not paid, the land acquisition proceedings should be considered to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. They relied on the High Court’s judgment, which had followed the interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation.
The innovativeness of the argument by the Land Acquisition Collector lies in pointing out that the High Court had relied on a judgment that had already been overruled by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, thereby making the High Court’s decision unsustainable.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Land Acquisition Collector | Sub-Submissions by Landowners |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Land Acquisition Proceedings |
✓ High Court relied on overruled judgment. ✓ Possession was taken on 16 March 2004. ✓ Proceedings cannot lapse if possession is taken. |
✓ Compensation was not paid. ✓ Relied on High Court’s interpretation of Section 24(2). |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, given that possession had been taken but compensation was not paid.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) if possession is taken but compensation is not paid. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was unsustainable because it relied on the overruled judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court reiterated the position that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” Therefore, if possession has been taken, the proceedings do not lapse, regardless of whether compensation has been paid. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled | Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
| Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
| Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Statute | Interpreted | Conditions for lapse of land acquisition proceedings. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| High Court’s reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation | Rejected as the judgment was overruled by the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority. |
| Land Acquisition Collector’s argument that possession was taken | Accepted as valid. |
| Landowners’ argument that compensation was not paid | Rejected as irrelevant due to possession being taken. |
The Supreme Court specifically stated 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 versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. The court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, should be read as “nor” or “and.” Therefore, if possession has been taken, the proceedings do not lapse, regardless of whether compensation has been paid.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain legal consistency and adhere to the binding precedent set by its Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Court emphasized that a previous judgment of the Supreme Court, Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 which was relied upon by the High Court, had been specifically overruled. This indicated a strong emphasis on the principle of stare decisis (the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent).
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to the binding precedent of the Constitution Bench | 60% |
| Overruling of the previous judgment relied upon by the High Court | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The court’s reasoning was heavily based on legal principles and precedents rather than the specific factual matrix of the case. The court was primarily concerned with the correct interpretation of the law as laid down by a larger bench.
Logical Reasoning
The court’s reasoning was that the High Court had relied on a judgment that had been specifically overruled. The Supreme Court reiterated that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, should be read as “nor” or “and” based on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority. This meant that for land acquisition proceedings to lapse, both possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid. Since possession had been taken in this case, the proceedings could not be deemed to have lapsed.
The court did not consider any alternative interpretations of Section 24(2) as its interpretation was already settled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority.
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s decision was not sustainable, and therefore, set aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissed the original writ petition.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment in 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 provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the authority concerned as on 1-1-2014.”
“Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Land acquisition proceedings will not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, if the government has taken possession of the land, even if compensation has not been paid.
- ✓ The word “or” in Section 24(2) is to be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning both non-possession and non-payment are required for the proceedings to lapse.
- ✓ High Courts must adhere to the binding precedents set by the Supreme Court, especially Constitution Bench decisions.
- ✓ Landowners cannot claim a lapse of acquisition proceedings if possession has been taken, even if they have not received compensation.
This judgment reinforces the finality of land acquisition proceedings where possession has been taken and clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. It will likely reduce litigation related to land acquisition lapses, providing more certainty for both the government and landowners.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this case, apart from setting aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissing the original writ petition.
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, must be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that for land acquisition proceedings to lapse, both the conditions of non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation must be met. This judgment reaffirms the position of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 and overrules the previous interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183. This clarifies the legal position and provides certainty on when land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2).
Conclusion
In the case of Land Acquisition Collector (South East) vs. Dharamvir & Ors., the Supreme Court clarified that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, if the government has taken possession of the land, irrespective of whether compensation has been paid. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” based on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority. This ruling sets aside the High Court’s judgment and reinforces the legal position regarding land acquisition and compensation.