Date of the Judgment: 02 November 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 7960 of 2022
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can a land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed solely because compensation wasn’t paid to the landowner, even if possession was taken? 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. This judgment clarifies the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings can be deemed to have lapsed. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against a judgment by the High Court of Delhi. The High Court had ruled that the land acquisition in question had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). The High Court’s decision was based on the fact that compensation had not been paid to the original landowner, despite the fact that the Land Acquisition Collector/L&B Department, Government of NCT of Delhi had taken possession of the land on 02.09.2006.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 02.09.2006 | Possession of the land was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector/L&B Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. |
| 2013 | The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force. |
| 2016 | The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by the original landowner, declaring that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
| 02 November 2022 | The Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court’s decision in the present appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi ruled in favor of the original landowner, stating that since compensation had not been paid, Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 was applicable, leading to the lapse of the acquisition. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
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 under certain conditions.
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.”
The Supreme Court also referred to Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with taking possession of the land after an award has been passed.
Arguments
The High Court held that since the compensation had not been paid to the original landowner, Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 was attracted, and therefore the acquisition was deemed to have lapsed.
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) argued that the High Court’s interpretation was incorrect and contrary to the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129. They contended that the acquisition should not lapse if possession has been taken, regardless of whether compensation has been paid.
| Argument | Sub-Argument |
|---|---|
| Original Landowner | ✓ Since compensation was not paid, the acquisition should lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
| Delhi Development Authority (DDA) |
✓ The High Court’s interpretation of Section 24(2) is incorrect. ✓ The acquisition should not lapse if possession has been taken, irrespective of compensation payment. ✓ The High Court’s view is contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The core issue before the Supreme Court 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 possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid to the landowner.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| 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 possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid to the landowner. | The Supreme Court held that the acquisition does not lapse if possession has been taken, regardless of whether compensation has been paid. The Court clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for the acquisition to lapse. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | The Supreme Court followed the Constitution Bench decision, which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The High Court’s ruling that the acquisition lapsed due to non-payment of compensation. | The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, stating it was contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129. |
| The DDA’s argument that the acquisition should not lapse if possession has been taken. | The Supreme Court upheld this argument, clarifying that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and”. |
The Supreme Court specifically addressed the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, referencing its earlier decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129.
The Court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation must be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that for the acquisition to lapse, both possession must not have been taken, and compensation must not have been paid.
The Court reiterated that once possession is taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests in the State, and there is no provision for divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by its previous Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Court aimed to maintain consistency in the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The Court also emphasized the importance of the fact that possession of the land had already been taken by the authorities.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to Precedent | 60% |
| Importance of Possession | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The Court quoted from Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129:
“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.”
The Court further quoted:
“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).”
The Court also stated:
“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.”
Key Takeaways
- Land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if possession of the land has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid.
- The word “or” in Section 24(2) should be interpreted as “nor” or “and,” requiring both non-possession and non-payment of compensation for the acquisition to lapse.
- Once possession of land is taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests in the State, and there is no provision for divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- This clarifies the legal position regarding land acquisition lapses and provides certainty for authorities and landowners.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment, dismissing the original writ petition filed by the landowner.
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.” This interpretation clarifies that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for land acquisition proceedings to lapse. This judgment reinforces the position of law established in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. Krishan Lal Arora & Ors. clarifies that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse solely due to non-payment of compensation if possession has been taken. This decision reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as laid down in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Category:
- Land Acquisition Law
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Section 24, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Section 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894
FAQ
Q: What does Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, deal with?
A: Section 24(2) deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings if certain conditions are met, specifically if an award was made five years or more before the commencement of the Act, and either possession hasn’t been taken or compensation hasn’t been paid.
Q: What was the main issue in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Krishan Lal Arora & Ors.?
A: The main issue was whether land acquisition proceedings lapse if possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid to the landowner.
Q: How did the Supreme Court interpret the word “or” in Section 24(2)?
A: The Supreme Court interpreted “or” as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for the acquisition to lapse.
Q: What is the significance of taking possession of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
A: Once possession of land is taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests in the State, and there is no provision for divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Q: What was the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?
A: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, ruling that the acquisition did not lapse because possession had been taken, even though compensation had not been paid.
Q: What is the key takeaway from this judgment for landowners and authorities?
A: The key takeaway is that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse solely due to non-payment of compensation if possession has been taken, providing clarity and certainty for both landowners and authorities.