LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the acquisition of land lapses under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 if compensation is deposited in court but possession is not taken.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Land Acquisition Collector (South), New Delhi and Anr. vs. Suresh B. Kapur & Ors.
Judgment Date: 02 December 2022
Date of the Judgment: 02 December 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 1035
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can the mere deposit of compensation in court be considered sufficient for land acquisition when possession of the land has not been taken? The Supreme Court of India 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 can be deemed to have lapsed. The bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case revolves around land in Chattarpur, New Delhi, specifically Khasra Nos. 717, 718/1, 756/2/1, and 757/1, totaling 12 bighas and 11 biswas. The acquisition process began with a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 25 November 1980, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on 7 June 1985.
Initially, some affected parties challenged the acquisition in the High Court of Delhi, which quashed the Section 6 declaration on 18 November 1988. However, the Supreme Court clarified in Union of India vs. Gurdeep Singh Uban that the quashing applied only to the original petitioners and not to the entire proceedings. Subsequently, other landowners filed writ petitions, which were dismissed by the High Court on 19 May 2005. The Supreme Court also dismissed a special leave petition against this order on 8 February 2010. The compensation was deposited with the Court on 30 December 2013.
In February 2015, the respondent, Suresh B. Kapur, filed a writ petition arguing that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because neither possession had been taken nor compensation paid. The High Court ruled in favor of Kapur, stating that the mere deposit of compensation in court was insufficient without the actual taking of possession, leading to the current appeal.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 25 November 1980 | Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. |
| 7 June 1985 | Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. |
| 18 November 1988 | High Court of Delhi quashed the Section 6 declaration in Balak Ram Gupta vs. Union of India. |
| August 1999 | Supreme Court clarifies in Union of India vs. Gurdeep Singh Uban that quashing of notification in Balak Ram Gupta (supra) cannot be treated as quashing of the entire proceedings. |
| 19 May 2005 | High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging the acquisition proceedings. |
| 8 February 2010 | Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition against the High Court order of 19 May 2005. |
| 30 December 2013 | Compensation for the land was deposited with the Court. |
| February 2015 | Suresh B. Kapur filed a writ petition claiming the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. |
| 23 September 2014 | Delhi High Court in Gyanender Singh vs. Union of India held that mere deposit of compensation in court is not sufficient unless it is tendered to the persons interested. |
| 31 August 2016 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the order in Gyanender Singh vs. Union of India. |
| 02 December 2022 | Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Land Acquisition Collector. |
Course of Proceedings
The acquisition proceedings were initially challenged in the High Court of Delhi, which quashed the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, this decision was clarified by the Supreme Court to apply only to the original petitioners. Subsequently, other writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court, and the Supreme Court also dismissed a special leave petition against this order. The High Court, in the current case, relied on its earlier decision in Gyanender Singh vs. Union of India, which held that the mere deposit of compensation in court was not sufficient. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
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. This section 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 to interpret the meaning of “or” between ‘possession’ and ‘compensation’ in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and whether the deposit of compensation in court constitutes payment.
Arguments
Appellant (Land Acquisition Collector) Arguments:
-
The compensation was deposited in the Court, satisfying one of the conditions under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
-
The acquisition proceedings were under challenge, which prevented the authorities from taking possession. The benefit of this should not be given to the landowners.
-
The decision of the High Court was contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors..
Respondent (Suresh B. Kapur) Arguments:
-
Possession of the land was not taken.
-
Mere deposit of compensation in court is not sufficient unless the possession is taken.
-
The respondent was never offered or tendered the compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector.
-
The decision of the High Court was correct and in line with the judgment in Gyanender Singh vs. Union of India, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act? |
|
|
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 acquisition of land lapses under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if compensation is deposited in court but possession is not taken?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the acquisition of land lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is deposited in court but possession is not taken? | No, the acquisition does not lapse. | The Supreme Court held that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that if either possession is taken or compensation is paid, the acquisition does not lapse. The deposit of compensation in court is considered sufficient. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
- Union of India vs. Gurdeep Singh Uban: The Supreme Court held that the quashing of the notification in Balak Ram Gupta case was not a judgment in rem and would apply only to the petitioners therein.
- 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. The court in Pune Municipal Corporation had held that the acquisition would lapse if the compensation was not paid, even if it was deposited in court.
- Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129: The Constitution Bench held that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” and that the deposit of compensation in court is sufficient to prevent the lapse of acquisition proceedings. This case specifically overruled Pune Municipal Corporation.
- Gyanender Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 1393 of 2014: The High Court held that unless the compensation is tendered to the person, mere deposit in court is insufficient. This view was rejected by the Supreme Court in the present case.
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
- Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Notification for acquisition of land.
- Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Declaration of intended acquisition.
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Lapsing of acquisition proceedings.
- Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Payment of compensation.
| Authority | Court | How the Authority was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India vs. Gurdeep Singh Uban | Supreme Court of India | Clarified that the quashing of proceedings in Balak Ram Gupta was not a judgment in rem. |
| Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled by Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal. |
| Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to interpret Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and to overrule Pune Municipal Corporation. |
| Gyanender Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 1393 of 2014 | High Court of Delhi | Rejected as it was contrary to the decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Appellant argued that compensation was deposited, satisfying Section 24(2), and that possession was delayed due to litigation. | The Court accepted this argument, stating that the deposit of compensation in court is sufficient and that the delay in taking possession was due to the legal challenges to the acquisition. |
| Respondent argued that possession was not taken and that mere deposit of compensation is insufficient. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” and that the deposit of compensation in court is sufficient. |
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183* was overruled. The Supreme Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, which clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that if either possession is taken or compensation is paid, the acquisition does not lapse. The Court also held that the deposit of compensation in court is considered sufficient payment for the purposes of Section 24(2).
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 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the precedent set by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in the provision should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that if either possession is taken or compensation is paid, the acquisition does not lapse. The Court also considered the fact that the delay in taking possession was due to the litigation initiated by the landowners themselves, and that the deposit of compensation in court was sufficient to meet the requirements of the law.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act | 40% |
| Precedent set by Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal | 35% |
| Delay in taking possession due to litigation | 15% |
| Deposit of compensation in court is sufficient payment | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Start: Land acquisition under the 1894 Act
Award made 5+ years before 2013 Act
Was possession taken OR compensation paid?
If YES to either: Acquisition does NOT lapse
If NO to both: Acquisition lapses
In this case, compensation was deposited, so acquisition does not lapse
The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:
- The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.”
- The deposit of compensation in court is considered sufficient payment.
- The delay in taking possession was due to the litigation initiated by the landowners.
The Court rejected the argument that the acquisition had lapsed, stating that the deposit of compensation in court was sufficient for the purposes of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The High Court’s decision was set aside.
“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.”
“The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court.”
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.”
- If either possession is taken or compensation is paid, the land acquisition does not lapse.
- The deposit of compensation in court is considered sufficient payment for the purposes of Section 24(2).
- Delays in taking possession due to litigation initiated by landowners will not result in the lapse of acquisition proceedings.
- The judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. has been overruled.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and allowed the appeal of the Land Acquisition Collector.
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 read as “nor” or “and,” and that the deposit of compensation in court is sufficient to prevent the lapse of acquisition proceedings. This judgment clarifies the law on land acquisition, specifically overruling the previous interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. and reinforcing the position established in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Land Acquisition Collector vs. Suresh B. Kapur clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court held that the deposit of compensation in court is sufficient to prevent the lapse of acquisition proceedings, even if possession has not been taken, provided that there has been no inaction on the part of the authorities for five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. This decision overrules previous interpretations and provides much-needed clarity on land acquisition laws.
Category
Parent category: Land Acquisition Law
Child categories:
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Compensation
- Possession
- Lapse of Acquisition
- Supreme Court Judgments on Land Acquisition
Parent category: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Child categories:
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Parent category: Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Child categories:
- Section 4, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Section 6, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
FAQ
What does Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act say about land acquisition?
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 years or more before the Act came into force (1 January 2014), and either possession of the land hasn’t been taken or compensation hasn’t been paid, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.
What did the Supreme Court decide about the word “or” in Section 24(2)?
The Supreme Court clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse. It’s not necessary for both to have occurred.
Does depositing compensation in court count as “payment” under Section 24(2)?
Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that depositing compensation in court is considered sufficient payment for the purposes of Section 24(2). So, if the compensation has been deposited, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse, even if possession has not been taken.
What happens if possession of the land was not taken because of court cases?
If the delay in taking possession was due to court cases or litigation initiated by the landowners, this will not lead to the lapse of acquisition proceedings. The Supreme Court considered this aspect in its judgment.
What if the compensation was not offered to the landowner?
If the compensation was deposited in the court, it is deemed sufficient payment, even if the compensation was not directly offered or tendered to the landowner.
What does this mean for future land acquisition cases?
This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It means that authorities don’t necessarily have to take possession and pay compensation directly to the landowner to avoid the lapse of acquisition proceedings. Depositing compensation in court is enough.