Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 1300 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 3853 of 2023) (@ Diary No. 9801 of 2022)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed if the authorities have not taken possession of the land or paid compensation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this 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 the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings are considered to have lapsed, particularly concerning possession 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 (LAC), New Delhi, appealed against a judgment by the High Court of Delhi. The High Court had ruled that the land acquisition proceedings for certain lands in Wazirabad had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the “Act, 2013”). The lands in question were Khasra Nos. 35/2/2 (6-04), 36/2/2 (4-13), and 40/2/2 (5-01), totaling 15 bighas 18 biswa.
The LAC claimed that possession of Khasra No. 35/2/2 (6 bighas 04 biswa) was taken on 22 September 1997. For Khasra No. 36/2/2 (4 bighas 13 biswa), possession of 3 bighas was taken on the same date, but 1 bigha 13 biswa remained unpossessed. The LAC admitted that possession of Khasra No. 40/2/2 (5 bighas 01 biswa) was not taken. The LAC stated that the possession of some portions of the land could not be taken due to stay orders in Writ Petitions No. 2506/1982 and 3631/1982. The High Court, relying on the overruled decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, declared that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 22 September 1997 | LAC claims possession of Khasra No. 35/2/2 (6 bighas 04 biswa) and 3 bighas of Khasra No. 36/2/2 (4 bighas 13 biswa) was taken. |
| Prior to 2013 | Stay orders in Writ Petitions No. 2506/1982 and 3631/1982 prevented the LAC from taking possession of some portions of the land. |
| 2013 | The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force. |
| 2015 | High Court of Delhi declared that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in Writ Petition (C) No. 2198 of 2015. |
| 24 February 2023 | Supreme Court of India set aside the High Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1300 of 2023. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi, in Writ Petition (C) No. 2198 of 2015, ruled in favor of the original writ petitioners (landowners), declaring that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. This decision was primarily based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which was later overruled. The Land Acquisition Collector 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. This section deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings if certain conditions are not met. 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 clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, specifically addressing the use of “or” between possession and compensation. The Court held that “or” should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that for a lapse to occur, neither possession should have been taken nor compensation paid.
Arguments
The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) argued that the High Court erred in applying the overruled judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation. The LAC contended that possession of some of the lands was taken, and the failure to take possession of the remaining land was due to court stay orders. The LAC relied on the interpretation of Section 24(2) as clarified in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which held that a lapse occurs only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid.
The respondents (landowners) argued that since possession of all the lands was not taken and compensation was not fully paid, 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 the now-overruled interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation.
The innovativeness of the argument by the LAC lies in its reliance on the interpretation of Section 24(2) as clarified in Indore Development Authority, which overruled the previous interpretation that was favorable to the landowners.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) |
|
| Landowners |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this judgment. However, the core issue was:
✓ Whether the acquisition proceedings for the subject lands lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the acquisition proceedings for the subject lands lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013? | The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings did not lapse. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in relying on the overruled judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation. The Court applied the law laid down in Indore Development Authority, which clarified that for a lapse to occur under Section 24(2), both possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid. Since the LAC had taken possession of some of the land, the proceedings did not lapse. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled. The High Court had relied on this case, which interpreted Section 24(2) to mean that a lapse occurs if either possession is not taken or compensation is not paid. This interpretation was overruled. |
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Followed. This Constitution Bench judgment clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning a lapse occurs only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid. |
The Court also considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: The central provision under consideration, dealing with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Land Acquisition Collector (LAC): The High Court erred in applying the overruled judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation. Possession of some lands was taken. Failure to take possession of the remaining land was due to court stay orders. Relied on the interpretation of Section 24(2) as clarified in Indore Development Authority. | The Court accepted the LAC’s submissions. It held that the High Court had erred in relying on the overruled judgment. The Court applied the interpretation of Section 24(2) as clarified in Indore Development Authority, finding that since possession of some land was taken, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse. |
| Landowners: Possession of all lands was not taken. Compensation was not fully paid. Acquisition proceedings should be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Relied on the High Court’s judgment, based on the overruled interpretation of Section 24(2) in Pune Municipal Corporation. | The Court rejected the landowners’ submissions. The Court clarified that the interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation was overruled and that the correct interpretation was as laid down in Indore Development Authority. The Court held that since possession of some of the land was taken, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse. |
The Court analyzed the authorities as follows:
- Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183*: The Supreme Court explicitly stated that this decision was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. The High Court’s reliance on this case was deemed erroneous.
- Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129*: The Supreme Court followed this judgment, which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The Court emphasized that for a lapse to occur, both possession must not have been taken, and compensation must not have been paid.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to adhere to the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, as established by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. The Court emphasized the importance of following the precedent set by a larger bench, particularly when a previous judgment has been explicitly overruled. The Court also noted the factual aspect that possession of some of the land had been taken, which, under the correct interpretation of Section 24(2), meant that the acquisition proceedings could not be deemed to have lapsed.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to Precedent | 40% |
| Correct Interpretation of Law | 35% |
| Factual Basis | 25% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, as clarified in Indore Development Authority. The factual aspect of possession being taken for some of the land was a secondary consideration, but it was crucial in applying the correct legal interpretation. The ratio of law to fact is 70:30, indicating that the legal interpretation played a more significant role in the Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning is as follows:
The High Court had relied on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation, which was specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. The Court stated, “Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corpn. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. has been followed, are also overruled.”
The Supreme Court reiterated the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in Indore Development Authority, stating, “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.”
Since the LAC had taken possession of some of the land, the conditions for a deemed lapse under Section 24(2) were not met. The Court concluded, “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 clarified that the High Court had materially erred in declaring that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the entire land were deemed to have lapsed. The Court emphasized that the correct legal position was that if either possession was taken or compensation was paid, there was no lapse.
There were no minority opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court clarified that for land acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, both possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid.
- The judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation, which held that a lapse occurs if either possession is not taken or compensation is not paid, has been overruled.
- This judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority.
- Landowners cannot claim a lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) if possession of any part of the land has been taken or compensation has been paid.
- The judgment emphasizes the importance of following the precedents set by larger benches of the Supreme Court.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that if the original landowners or persons interested have not been paid compensation, they may be paid compensation for the lands in question in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court also directed that their prayers be considered in accordance with law and on their own merits.
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,” as clarified in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. This judgment reaffirms the position of law established in Indore Development Authority and overrules the previous position as held in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the acquisition proceedings for the lands in question did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, as possession of some of the land had been taken. The Court emphasized the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in Indore Development Authority, clarifying that a lapse occurs only if both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid. This judgment provides clarity on the conditions for the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013.