LEGAL ISSUE: Whether land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can 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, if compensation was not paid, despite possession being taken.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. vs. Karampal and Anr.
Judgment Date: 2 December 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 2 December 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8931 of 2022 (@ SLP (C) NO. 21812 OF 2022) (@ DIARY NO. 27599 OF 2022)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a land acquisition be invalidated if the government takes possession but doesn’t pay compensation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning land acquired by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and whether the acquisition proceedings can lapse if compensation is not paid despite the government taking possession of the land. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute over land acquired by the Government of NCT of Delhi under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court of Delhi had previously ruled in favor of the subsequent purchaser, declaring that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed because compensation was not paid, despite the government having taken possession of the land. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed this decision, arguing that the High Court’s ruling was based on a previously overruled judgment.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1894 | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 enacted. |
| 17.09.2008 | Possession of the land in question was taken over by the Government of NCT of Delhi. |
| 2013 | Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 enacted. |
| 1-1-2014 | The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force. |
| 2017 | High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by the subsequent purchaser, declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed. |
| 2 December 2022 | Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court’s decision. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi, relying on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 because compensation was not paid. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s decision was based on a judgment that had been specifically overruled by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provisions at the heart of this case are:
- 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. It 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.”
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The original act under which the land was acquired.
The interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, particularly the use of the word “or,” is central to this case. The Supreme Court, in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, clarified that “or” should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that for a lapse to occur, both possession must not be taken and compensation must not be paid.
Arguments
Appellants (Government of NCT of Delhi):
- The possession of the land was taken on 17.09.2008.
- The name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records.
- The High Court incorrectly relied on the decision of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which has been overruled.
- The subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings as held in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., – Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022.
Respondent (Karampal, subsequent purchaser):
- The compensation was not paid in accordance with the law.
- Relied on the decision of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, to claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Acquisition proceedings have lapsed | Compensation was not paid | Respondent |
| Acquisition proceedings have lapsed | Relied on Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 | Respondent |
| Acquisition proceedings have not lapsed | Possession of the land was taken on 17.09.2008. | Appellant |
| Acquisition proceedings have not lapsed | Name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records. | Appellant |
| Acquisition proceedings have not lapsed | High Court incorrectly relied on the decision of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which has been overruled. | Appellant |
| Acquisition proceedings have not lapsed | Subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings | Appellant |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the judgment. However, the core issue revolved around:
- Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
- Whether a subsequent purchaser can claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings.
- Whether the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 should be read as “and” or “nor”.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on the overruled judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed as possession was taken. |
| Whether a subsequent purchaser can claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings. | The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013. |
| Whether the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 should be read as “and” or “nor”. | The Supreme Court, relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, reiterated that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “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. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the Court:
| 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 |
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) | Relied Upon |
| Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., – Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022 | Supreme Court of India | Relied Upon |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The possession of the land was taken on 17.09.2008. | Accepted as a valid point, indicating no lapse of acquisition. |
| The name of the Government was mutated in the revenue records. | Accepted as a valid point, further supporting that possession was taken. |
| The High Court incorrectly relied on the decision of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which has been overruled. | Accepted as a valid point, as the High Court’s decision was based on an overruled judgment. |
| The subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings. | Accepted as a valid point, as the Supreme Court has held that subsequent purchasers cannot claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings. |
| The compensation was not paid in accordance with the law. | Rejected as a ground for lapsing of acquisition since possession was taken. |
| Relied on the decision of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, to claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. | Rejected as the relied upon judgment was overruled. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- 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 vs. Manoharlal. The High Court’s reliance on this overruled judgment was deemed incorrect.
- Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129: The Supreme Court relied heavily on this Constitution Bench decision, which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court reiterated that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both possession must not be taken and compensation must not be paid for a lapse to occur.
- Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors., – Civil Appeal No. 3073 of 2022: The Supreme Court relied on this case to reiterate that a subsequent purchaser cannot claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to adhere to established legal precedent and the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in relying on the overruled judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation. The court also highlighted that the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority had settled the law on the interpretation of Section 24(2), clarifying that the word “or” must be read as “nor” or “and”. This meant that for a lapse to occur, both possession must not be taken and compensation must not be paid. The fact that possession was taken by the government was a key factor in the Court’s decision. The court also considered the fact that the original writ petitioner before the High Court was a subsequent purchaser, who is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to legal precedent | 30% |
| Correct interpretation of Section 24(2) | 40% |
| Possession taken by the government | 20% |
| Subsequent purchaser not entitled to claim lapse | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court clarified that for land acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both possession must not be taken and compensation must not be paid.
- The word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and”.
- A subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013.
- The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, has been overruled.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The appeal was allowed.
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”. This means that for a land acquisition proceeding to lapse, both possession of the land must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid. This judgment reaffirms the position of law established in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and overrules the previous interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation. This clarifies the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed, providing greater legal certainty.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Karampal overturns the Delhi High Court’s ruling, reinforcing the principle 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 judgment reaffirms the interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and clarifies that subsequent purchasers cannot claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings. This decision provides clarity on the conditions for the lapse of land acquisition proceedings, ensuring that the government’s actions are consistent with the law.
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
- Lapse of Land Acquisition Proceedings
- Interpretation of Statutes
- Supreme Court Judgments on Land Acquisition
Parent Category: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Child Category: Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in the Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Karampal case?
A: The main issue is 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 the government has taken possession of the land but not paid compensation.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about the interpretation of “or” in Section 24(2)?
A: The Supreme Court held that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that for a land acquisition to lapse, both possession must not be taken and compensation must not be paid.
Q: Can a subsequent purchaser claim that land acquisition proceedings have lapsed?
A: No, the Supreme Court has clarified that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings.
Q: What was the significance of the Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal case in this judgment?
A: The Supreme Court relied heavily on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal, which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This case established that “or” should be read as “nor” or “and.”
Q: What is the practical implication of this judgment?
A: The judgment clarifies that if the government has taken possession of land, the acquisition proceedings will not lapse even if compensation has not been paid. This provides more legal certainty for land acquisitions.