Supreme Court overturns High Court order on land acquisition lapse in Delhi: Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manjeet Kaur (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 13 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 208

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a subsequent purchaser of land challenge the acquisition of that land? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning land acquisition in Delhi. This judgment clarifies the legal standing of subsequent purchasers and interprets the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings can be deemed to have lapsed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The bench was composed of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around a dispute over land located in Village Satbari, New Delhi. The original writ petitioner, Manjeet Kaur, claimed ownership of the land based on an agreement to sell, assignment deed, receipt, possession letter, electricity bill, and property tax bill. The Government of NCT of Delhi initiated acquisition proceedings for the land. Manjeet Kaur, as a subsequent purchaser, challenged these proceedings, claiming they 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 of Delhi ruled in favor of Manjeet Kaur, leading the Government of NCT of Delhi to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by Manjeet Kaur, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings 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 relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, observing that neither possession of the land had been taken nor compensation had been paid as per the law. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that Manjeet Kaur, being a subsequent purchaser, had no locus to challenge the acquisition. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not address the issue of the subsequent purchaser’s locus standi.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision at the center of this case is 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. The Supreme Court also considered the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly concerning the process of taking possession of land and paying compensation. The court referred to Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which discusses the process of tendering compensation, and Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with the vesting of land in the State after possession is taken. The interplay between these provisions and the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act were crucial to the court’s decision.

Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement 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:
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.”

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court focused on two main points: the locus standi of a subsequent purchaser and the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

• Appellant’s Arguments (Govt. of NCT of Delhi):
  • The primary argument was that the original writ petitioner, Manjeet Kaur, being a subsequent purchaser, had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings or claim a deemed lapse of acquisition.
  • The appellant relied on previous Supreme Court decisions, including Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022, to support the argument that subsequent purchasers cannot claim a lapse of acquisition.
  • They argued that the High Court 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 a Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
  • The appellant also contended that the possession of the land could not be taken due to pending litigation and stay orders.
• Respondent’s Arguments (Manjeet Kaur):
  • The respondent, as the original writ petitioner, claimed ownership of the land based on an agreement to sell, assignment deed, receipt, possession letter, electricity bill, and property tax bill.
  • She argued that 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, as neither possession had been taken nor compensation had been paid.
  • The respondent relied on the High Court’s decision, which was based on the interpretation of Section 24(2) and the now-overruled Pune Municipal Corporation judgment.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed were:

1. Whether a subsequent purchaser of land has the locus standi to challenge the acquisition of said land.
2. Whether the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have 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

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several key judgments and legal provisions to reach its decision. These authorities are categorized below:

Cases

• Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 (Supreme Court): This case was initially relied upon by the High Court to declare the acquisition lapsed. However, the Supreme Court noted that this case had been overruled.
• Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229 (Supreme Court): This case established that a subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge acquisition proceedings.
• Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3073/2022 (Supreme Court): This case reiterated the principle that a subsequent purchaser cannot claim a lapse of acquisition proceedings.
• Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 173 (Supreme Court): This case was considered in the Godfrey Philips judgment regarding the locus of subsequent purchasers.
• M. Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (2015) 17 SCC 1 (Supreme Court): This case was also considered in the Godfrey Philips judgment regarding the locus of subsequent purchasers.
• Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Supreme Court): This Constitution Bench decision overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Statutes

• 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.
• Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the process of tendering compensation.
• Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the vesting of land in the State after possession is taken.

Authorities Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi, setting aside the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the original writ petitioner, being a subsequent purchaser, had no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings. The Court also stated that the acquisition proceedings could not 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, particularly in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation. The Supreme Court emphasized that possession of the land could not be taken due to pending litigation and stay orders.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal principle that a subsequent purchaser does not have the locus standi to challenge acquisition proceedings. This principle was consistently upheld in previous judgments of the Supreme Court, particularly in Shiv Kumar and Godfrey Philips. Additionally, the Court emphasized that the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act had been clarified by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority, which overruled the earlier interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation. The fact that the authorities could not take possession of the land due to pending litigation and stay orders also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision. The Court’s reasoning focused on maintaining legal consistency and ensuring that the law is applied correctly, especially in cases involving land acquisition.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of Section 24(2), which was based on the overruled Pune Municipal Corporation judgment. The Court emphasized that the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority had clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” The Court also noted that the authorities could not take possession of the land due to pending litigation and stay orders, which further supported the conclusion that the acquisition proceedings did not lapse.

The Court stated: “In view of the above, the High Court has seriously erred in declaring that the acquisition in respect of the land in question is deemed to have lapsed in writ petition filed by the original writ petitioner – subsequent purchaser.”

The Court also observed: “Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the possession of the land in question could not be taken by the authority due to pending litigation/stay.”

Finally, the Court concluded: “Applying the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Shiv Kumar (supra), Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. (supra) and the decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.”

Key Takeaways

• A subsequent purchaser of land generally does not have the legal standing to challenge the acquisition of that land.
• Land acquisition proceedings are not 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 possession could not be taken due to pending litigation or stay orders, or if compensation has been tendered.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, has clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2), overruling the earlier interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation.
• The word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession are required for a lapse of acquisition proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court’s order and dismissing the original writ petition.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a subsequent purchaser does not have the locus standi to challenge land acquisition proceedings. Additionally, the judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as clarified in Indore Development Authority, which overruled the previous position of law established in Pune Municipal Corporation. This case clarifies that both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession are required for a lapse of acquisition proceedings and that pending litigation or stay orders can prevent the lapse of acquisition.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Manjeet Kaur clarifies the legal position of subsequent purchasers in land acquisition cases and reinforces the correct interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court’s ruling ensures that land acquisition proceedings are not easily challenged by subsequent purchasers and that authorities are not penalized for delays caused by litigation. The judgment also highlights the significance of the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority, which has settled the law on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.