Supreme Court Remands Land Acquisition Cases for Fresh Review: State of Haryana vs. Hira Singh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 2, 2023

Citation: Not Available

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

What happens when the government acquires land but doesn’t pay compensation or take possession? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a series of appeals concerning land acquisitions in Haryana. The core issue revolved around whether these acquisitions 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. The Supreme Court, without going into the merits of the case, remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration based on the law laid down in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*

Case Background

The State of Haryana initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Landowners challenged these acquisitions, but their challenges were unsuccessful. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a common judgment dated October 27, 2016, declared that the acquisitions had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 because compensation had not been paid, and the landowners remained in possession of their lands. The State of Haryana appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that possession had been taken, and therefore, the acquisitions should not lapse.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in its judgment dated October 27, 2016, allowed the writ petitions filed by the landowners. The High Court observed that compensation had not been paid or deposited as per Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that the awards were passed more than five years before the 2013 Act came into force on January 1, 2014. The High Court also noted that the landowners continued to hold physical possession of the land. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the acquisitions were deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The State of Haryana then appealed 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. This section states that if an award was made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, five years or more before the commencement of the 2013 Act, and either the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed.

The relevant portion of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is:

“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”

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the State of Haryana:

• The State argued that the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were challenged by the landowners, but the landowners did not get any relief.
• The State contended that the possession of the lands had already been taken, and in most cases, this was done by drawing up a Rapat/Rooznamcha.
• The State submitted that once possession was taken, the lands vested with the State Government.
• The State relied on the decision of the Constitution Bench in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*, arguing that there should be no deemed lapse of acquisition.

Arguments on behalf of the Original Landowners:

• The landowners argued that they were in actual and physical possession of the lands.
• They submitted that compensation had not been paid or tendered as per Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• They contended that the conditions mentioned in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 were satisfied, leading to a deemed lapse of acquisition.
• In the case of Hira Singh, it was argued that the proposal for realignment of the road was going on, and the land was no longer needed for the original purpose.
• In the case of Pritam Kumar Goel, it was argued that a proposal for de-acquisition of the land was pending and under consideration.

Other submissions:

• Counsel for other landowners requested that if the matter was remanded, they should be allowed to approach the State Government under Section 101-A of the Act of 2013 for de-acquisition of their lands.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this judgment. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in holding that the acquisitions had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, given the State’s claim that possession had been taken.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authority:

Judgment

The Supreme Court did not make a final determination on the merits of the case. Instead, it set aside the High Court’s judgment and remanded the matters back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the cases on their own merits, taking into account the law laid down in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*. The Court also clarified that all contentions of the parties were kept open for consideration by the High Court.

The Court also allowed the landowners to make a representation to the State Government under Section 101-A of the Act of 2013 for de-acquisition of their lands.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on the judgment of *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*, [(2020) 8 SCC 129], stating that the High Court should reconsider the case in light of this judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to remand the case indicates that it found the High Court’s judgment to be potentially inconsistent with the principles laid down in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of each case, particularly with respect to the issue of possession, in light of the precedent set by *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*. The Court also considered the fact that some landowners had pending requests for de-acquisition, which needed to be addressed.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court did not delve into the factual aspects of whether possession was indeed taken by the State. It focused on the legal aspect of ensuring that the High Court re-evaluated the matter based on the precedent set by *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*.

The Supreme Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 or the *Indore Development Authority* judgment. The decision was primarily focused on ensuring that the High Court followed the correct legal precedent.

The Supreme Court’s decision was to set aside the High Court’s order and send the case back for reconsideration. The Court did not make any final determination on the issue of whether the acquisition had lapsed.

The Court’s reasons for the decision were:

• To ensure consistency with the law laid down in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*.
• To allow the High Court to re-evaluate the facts, particularly regarding possession.
• To consider the pending requests for de-acquisition of land.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar agreeing on the order to remand the case.

The Supreme Court’s decision to remand the case has potential implications for similar land acquisition cases. It emphasizes the importance of adhering to precedents set by the Supreme Court, particularly in cases involving interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

The Supreme Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It primarily focused on ensuring that existing legal principles, as laid down in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*, were correctly applied by the High Court.

Key Takeaways

• Land acquisition cases under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, are subject to strict scrutiny, particularly regarding possession and compensation.
• High Courts must adhere to the precedents set by the Supreme Court, such as *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*, when interpreting Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
• Landowners may have the option to seek de-acquisition of their lands under Section 101-A of the Act of 2013, if applicable in their state.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the writ petitions afresh in accordance with the law laid down in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*, and on their own merits. The High Court was requested to dispose of the writ petitions preferably within nine months. The Court also allowed the landowners to make a representation to the State Government under Section 101-A of the Act of 2013 for de-acquisition of their lands, which the State Government was directed to consider within four months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court must reconsider the cases in light of the law laid down in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*, particularly regarding the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 and the issue of possession. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the Supreme Court has emphasized the need for strict adherence to its precedents.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *State of Haryana vs. Hira Singh* remands several land acquisition cases back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court did not make a final determination on the merits of the case, but directed the High Court to re-evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case in light of the principles laid down in *Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.*. This decision underscores the importance of adherence to legal precedents and thorough factual review in land acquisition matters.