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 is not paid, despite possession being taken.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors. vs. Krishan Kumar & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 17 February 2023
Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 1402
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J., and Sanjay Karol, J.
Can land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed if the government has taken possession of the land but has not yet paid compensation to the landowners? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in a recent case. The Court addressed the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, specifically focusing on the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings can be considered to have lapsed. The three-judge bench, consisting of Justices M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, and Sanjay Karol, delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case revolves around land in Village Molarband, which was initially notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on April 4, 1964. Subsequently, a declaration under Section 6 of the same Act was made on December 7, 1966. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) declared an award on October 19, 1981. The possession of the land, specifically Khasra Nos. 154/2 (3-05) and 155/2 (4-12), was taken on April 10, 1997, and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the beneficiary department. However, compensation for the land was not paid to the recorded owners and was deposited in a Reserve Deposit (RD) on January 30, 1982.
The original writ petitioners (the landowners) approached the High Court of Delhi seeking the return of the land, arguing that the entire land acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation. They contended that under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) argued that the possession of the land had been taken on April 10, 1997, and handed over to the DDA, and therefore, the acquisition should not be deemed to have lapsed.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| April 4, 1964 | Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. |
| December 7, 1966 | Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. |
| October 19, 1981 | Award declared by the Land Acquisition Collector. |
| January 30, 1982 | Compensation deposited in Reserve Deposit (RD). |
| April 10, 1997 | Possession of the land taken and handed over to DDA. |
| March 14, 2016 | High Court of Delhi declared the acquisition lapsed. |
| February 17, 2023 | Supreme Court 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, allowed the writ petition filed by the landowners and declared that the acquisition of the land had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court held that since the compensation had not been paid, the acquisition was deemed to have lapsed. The High Court did not consider the fact that possession of the land had been taken by the government on April 10, 1997, and handed over to the DDA. The Government of NCT of Delhi and others appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the “2013 Act”). This section addresses the lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the “1894 Act”). Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act 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 considered Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deal with the initial notification for land acquisition and the declaration of intended acquisition, respectively. The court also considered Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which deals with taking possession of the land.
Arguments
The arguments presented by both sides revolved around the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and whether the land acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed.
Arguments of the Government of NCT of Delhi:
- The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) argued that the possession of the land had been taken on April 10, 1997, and handed over to the beneficiary department, DDA, immediately. They submitted that the possession proceedings were in compliance with the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
- The LAC contended that the original writ petitioners had admitted that they were not in possession of the land, as they had asked for the return of the possession of the land.
- The Government argued that the High Court had erred in relying on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which had been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
- The Government argued that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be interpreted to mean that the land acquisition proceedings lapse only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid.
Arguments of the Landowners:
- The landowners argued that since the compensation had not been paid, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- The landowners relied on the High Court’s decision, which had favored their interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Acquisition proceedings have not lapsed | Possession of the land was taken on April 10, 1997, and handed over to DDA. | Government of NCT of Delhi |
| The original writ petitioners admitted they were not in possession by asking for return of possession. | Government of NCT of Delhi | |
| The High Court wrongly relied on Pune Municipal Corporation, which was overruled in Indore Development Authority. | Government of NCT of Delhi | |
| Acquisition proceedings have lapsed | Compensation had not been paid, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. | Landowners |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, based on non-payment of compensation, despite possession having been taken.
- The interpretation of the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, specifically whether it should be read as “and” or “nor”.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, based on non-payment of compensation, despite possession having been taken. | The High Court was incorrect. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on the overruled decision of Pune Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court also held that since possession was taken, the acquisition did not lapse. |
| The interpretation of the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, specifically whether it should be read as “and” or “nor”. | “Or” should be read as “nor” or “and”. | The Supreme Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority, which 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:
- Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 – Supreme Court of India. This case was relied upon by the High Court but was overruled by the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority.
- Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 – Supreme Court of India. This Constitution Bench decision overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Deals with the publication of preliminary notification for land acquisition.
- Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Deals with the declaration of intended acquisition of land.
- Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Deals with taking possession of land.
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 | Supreme Court of India | Overruled. The High Court relied on this case, but it was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. |
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Followed. The Supreme Court relied on this Constitution Bench decision to interpret Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and to overrule the High Court’s decision. |
| Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Statute | Mentioned for context of initial notification of land acquisition. |
| Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Statute | Mentioned for context of declaration of intended acquisition of land. |
| Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Statute | Mentioned for context of taking possession of land. |
| Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Statute | The core provision under consideration, interpreted based on Indore Development Authority. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Possession of the land was taken on April 10, 1997, and handed over to DDA. | Accepted. The Court acknowledged the LAC’s argument and evidence showing that possession was taken and handed over to the beneficiary department. |
| The original writ petitioners admitted they were not in possession by asking for return of possession. | Accepted. The Court noted that the landowners’ plea for the return of possession indicated that they were not in possession of the land. |
| The High Court wrongly relied on Pune Municipal Corporation, which was overruled in Indore Development Authority. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the High Court erred in relying on the overruled decision. |
| Compensation had not been paid, and therefore, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. | Rejected. The Court held that since possession had been taken, the non-payment of compensation alone would not lead to the lapse of acquisition proceedings. |
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 case was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority and thus, the High Court erred in relying on it.
- Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129: The Supreme Court followed this Constitution Bench decision, which 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.
- Section 4, Section 6, and Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: These were considered for the context of the land acquisition process, specifically the initial notification, declaration, and taking of possession.
- Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: The Court interpreted this provision based on the ruling in Indore Development Authority, clarifying that the acquisition does not lapse if possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as clarified by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. The Court emphasized that the High Court had erred in relying on the overruled decision of Pune Municipal Corporation. The Court also gave weight to the fact that possession of the land had been taken by the government on April 10, 1997, and handed over to the DDA, which was a critical factor in determining that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority | 40% |
| Overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation | 30% |
| Possession of the land taken by the government | 30% |
Fact:Law
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (consideration of factual aspects of the case) | 60% |
| Law (consideration of legal provisions and precedents) | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was based on the factual evidence presented by the government that possession had been taken, combined with the legal interpretation provided by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. This indicates a balanced approach, with a slightly higher emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court, after considering the facts and legal precedents, held that the High Court’s decision was unsustainable. The Court emphasized that the High Court had incorrectly relied on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation, which had been expressly overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. The Supreme Court reiterated that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be interpreted as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for the acquisition to lapse.
The Court noted that the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) had demonstrated that possession of the land was taken on April 10, 1997, and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The Court also pointed out that the original writ petitioners had admitted that they were not in possession of the land by asking for its return. Therefore, the Court concluded that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the Indore Development Authority judgment:
“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 quoted:
“The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/memorandum. 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 further clarified 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.”
The Supreme Court, therefore, allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and held that the acquisition of the land had not lapsed.
Key Takeaways
- Land acquisition proceedings will not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if the government has taken possession of the land, 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,” requiring both non-possession and non-payment for a lapse.
- The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation has been overruled and cannot be relied upon for interpreting Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- Landowners cannot claim a lapse of acquisition if the government has taken possession, even if they have not received compensation.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Specific Amendments Analysis
Not Applicable
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 land acquisition proceedings to lapse, both the conditions of non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession must be met. This judgment reaffirms the position of law established by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, and overrules any previous interpretations to the contrary, particularly the interpretation given in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183. The judgment clarifies that once possession is taken, the land vests in the State, and there is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, even if compensation has not been paid.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Krishan Kumar clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse if the government has taken possession of the land, even if compensation has not been paid. This decision reinforces the legal position established by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority and provides clarity on the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings can be deemed to have lapsed. The judgment overrules the High Court’s decision and ensures that land acquisitions where possession has been taken remain valid, even if compensation is pending.