Supreme Court clarifies land acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013: Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Sudesh Verma (2 December 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 2 December 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8929 of 2022 (@ SLP (C) No. 21810 of 2022) (@ DIARY NO. 27937 OF 2022)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed if the authorities could not take possession of the land due to pending court cases? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, 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 that if possession could not be taken due to pending legal challenges by the landowners, the acquisition proceedings would not lapse. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The Government of NCT of Delhi initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The original landowners challenged these proceedings, which eventually reached the Supreme Court. The landowners’ challenge was unsuccessful. Subsequently, the landowners argued that since the authorities had not taken physical possession of the land, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, declared that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court did not consider the fact that the possession could not be taken due to the pending legal challenges by the landowners. The Government of NCT of Delhi then 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, which 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.”

This section provides that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would lapse if the award was made five years or more before the commencement of the 2013 Act, and either physical possession was not taken or compensation was not paid. The Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court failed to consider that the delay in taking possession was due to the landowners’ own legal challenges against the acquisition proceedings.
• They contended that the landowners cannot benefit from their own actions that prevented the authorities from taking possession.
• The appellants relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that since physical possession was not taken, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
• They relied on the High Court’s judgment, which was based on Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the land acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, when the authorities could not take possession due to the landowners’ legal challenges.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 – This case was relied upon by the High Court.
• Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 – The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

Legal Provisions:

• 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.
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – The original act under which the land acquisition proceedings were initiated.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court held that the High Court wrongly relied on Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.
• The Court relied heavily on Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that landowners should not benefit from their own actions that caused delays in the acquisition process. The court emphasized that the delay in taking possession was directly attributable to the legal challenges initiated by the landowners. The court also relied on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, as clarified in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which held that the word “or” should be read as “nor” or “and.”

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s view, stating that it failed to consider the specific circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized that the landowners’ legal challenges had prevented the authorities from taking possession, and therefore, they could not claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The court reiterated the principle that a party cannot take advantage of a situation that they themselves created.

The Supreme Court quoted paragraph 366 of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which states:

“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 Court also noted that:

“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.”

The Supreme Court concluded that:

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Land acquisition proceedings will not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, if the delay in taking possession is due to legal challenges initiated by the landowners.
• The word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation must exist for the proceedings to lapse.
• Landowners cannot benefit from their own actions that prevent the authorities from taking possession of the land.
• This ruling clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) and provides guidance for future land acquisition cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment and allowed the appeal filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that land acquisition proceedings will not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, if the delay in taking possession is due to legal challenges initiated by the landowners. This judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) as clarified in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, and it clarifies that the word “or” should be read as “nor” or “and.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Sudesh Verma clarifies that land acquisition proceedings do not automatically lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if the delay in taking possession is due to legal challenges initiated by the landowners. The Court emphasized that landowners cannot benefit from their own actions that cause delays. This decision reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) as clarified in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, and provides important guidance for future land acquisition cases.