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 compensation has not been paid, despite possession being taken.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Union of India vs. Rajesh Kumar and Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 13 March 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 13 March 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 216
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Manoj Misra, J.
Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed simply because compensation wasn’t paid, even if the government has already taken possession of the land? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a 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 considered to have lapsed.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Manoj Misra, delivered the judgment, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around a land acquisition initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The original writ petitioner admitted that the possession of the agricultural land was taken on 22nd September 1997. However, the High Court of Delhi, relying on a previous Supreme Court decision, declared that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been paid. This decision was challenged by the Union of India, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 22 September 1997 | Possession of the agricultural land was taken by the authorities. |
| 2014 | Writ Petition (C) No. 9269 filed in High Court of Delhi. |
| High Court of Delhi | High Court declared the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. |
| 13 March 2023 | Supreme Court of India delivered the judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment, declared that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solan ki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which stated that acquisition lapses if compensation is not paid. The Union of India appealed this decision, arguing that possession had already been taken, and therefore, the acquisition should not lapse.
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 (Act, 2013). This section deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act, 1894).
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.”
Arguments
The appellant, Union of India, argued that the High Court erred in applying the decision of Pune Municipal Corporation, which had been overruled by a larger bench. The appellant emphasized that the original writ petitioner had admitted that possession of the land was taken on 22.09.1997. Therefore, the acquisition should not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
The respondent, Rajesh Kumar and Ors., contended that since the compensation had not been paid, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. They relied on the interpretation that non-payment of compensation, irrespective of possession, results in lapse.
Submissions Table
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India (Appellant) | Acquisition should not lapse. |
|
| Rajesh Kumar and Ors. (Respondent) | Acquisition should lapse. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, given that possession was taken but compensation was not paid.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, given that possession was taken but compensation was not paid? | No lapse. | The Supreme Court held that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that a lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. Since possession was taken in this case, the acquisition did not lapse. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled |
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled |
| Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412] | Supreme Court of India | Overruled on the aspect of proviso to Section 24(2) |
The Supreme Court also considered Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section 16 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India (Appellant) | Acquisition should not lapse because possession was taken. | Accepted. The Court agreed that since possession was taken, the acquisition did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. |
| Rajesh Kumar and Ors. (Respondent) | Acquisition should lapse because compensation was not paid. | Rejected. The Court held that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that a lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183: *Overruled*. The Supreme Court explicitly overruled this case, stating that its interpretation of Section 24(2) was incorrect. The Court held that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.”
✓ Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129: *Followed*. The Supreme Court followed the Constitution Bench decision in this case, which clarified the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
✓ Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353: *Overruled*. This case was also overruled because it followed the incorrect interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation.
✓ Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412]: *Overruled on the aspect of proviso to Section 24(2)*. The court held that this decision cannot prevail in light of the discussion in the present judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as clarified 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,” which means that a lapse occurs only when both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. The Court also gave importance to the fact that the original writ petitioner admitted that possession had been taken on 22.09.1997.
Ranking of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Correct interpretation of Section 24(2) as per Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal | 60% |
| Admission of possession taken by the original writ petitioner | 40% |
“Fact:Law” Ratio Table
| Aspect | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 40% |
| Law (Consideration of legal aspects) | 60% |
Logical Reasoning
↓
↓
↓
↓
The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as clarified in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal. The court held that 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 quoted from Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal:
“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 stated:
“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 Supreme Court also emphasized that the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation was incorrect and had been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority.
Key Takeaways
✓ Land acquisition proceedings will not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession of the land has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid.
✓ The word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be read as “nor” or “and.”
✓ The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation has been overruled and should not be followed.
✓ This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and provides certainty in land acquisition matters.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The original writ petition before the High Court was dismissed.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that for land acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid. This judgment reaffirms the interpretation given in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and overrules the previous position of law as held in Pune Municipal Corporation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” This decision settles the legal position on this issue and provides clarity for future cases.
Source: Union of India vs. Rajesh Kumar
Category:
✓ Land Acquisition
✓ Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
✓ Land Acquisition Act, 1894
✓ Section 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
✓ Section 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
FAQ
Q: What does this judgment mean for landowners whose land was acquired?
A: If the government has taken possession of your land, the acquisition will not lapse simply because you haven’t been paid compensation. You are still entitled to compensation, but the acquisition itself remains valid.
Q: What if the government has neither taken possession nor paid compensation?
A: In such a case, the acquisition proceedings would lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, provided that these conditions existed for five years or more before the commencement of the 2013 Act.
Q: What is the significance of 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 both non-possession and non-payment are required for the acquisition to lapse. If either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid, the acquisition is valid.
Q: What should I do if I believe my land acquisition has lapsed?
A: You should consult a legal expert to assess your specific situation, considering the facts of your case and the implications of this judgment.