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

Date of the Judgment: May 02, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 477

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

Can a land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed if the compensation has not been paid and the original owners retain physical possession? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a batch of appeals concerning land acquisitions in Haryana. The core issue revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, did not make a final determination but remanded the cases back to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Case Background

The State of Haryana initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The original landowners challenged these proceedings, specifically the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act. However, they were unsuccessful in obtaining relief. The State claimed that it had taken possession of the acquired lands, often by recording entries in the Rapat/Rooznamcha (revenue records). The landowners, on the other hand, contended that they remained in physical possession of their lands and that compensation had not been paid as required under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana ruled in favor of the landowners, stating that the acquisitions had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, through a common judgment dated 27.10.2016, allowed the writ petitions filed by the landowners. The High Court declared that the land acquisitions were 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 High Court noted that compensation had not been paid or deposited as per Section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that the landowners continued to retain physical possession of the acquired lands. The State of Haryana then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.

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, which 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.”

This provision stipulates that if an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was made five years or more before the 2013 Act came into force (January 1, 2014), and either physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed.
The court also considered Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with payment of compensation.

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, who failed to get any relief.
• The State contended that the possession of the lands had already been taken over, often evidenced by entries in the Rapat/Rooznamcha, and therefore, the lands had vested with the State Government.
• The State relied on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129], 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 contended that compensation had not been paid or tendered as per Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• Therefore, they argued that the conditions mentioned in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act were satisfied, leading to a deemed lapse of acquisition.
• In one case, it was argued that the proposal for realignment of the road was underway, indicating that the acquired land was no longer needed.
• In another case, it was argued that a proposal for de-acquisition of the land was pending and actively under consideration.

The innovativeness of the arguments made by the landowners lies in their emphasis on the continued physical possession and non-payment of compensation, directly invoking the conditions stipulated in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The State’s argument, on the other hand, relied on the technicality of possession through revenue records and the legal precedent set by the Indore Development Authority case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues for determination in this judgment. However, the core issue before the court was whether the High Court was correct in holding that the land acquisitions had 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 dealt with the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

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: This section deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under certain conditions.
• Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the payment of compensation for acquired lands.
• Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This section deals with the de-acquisition of land, as applicable to the State of Haryana.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129] was relied upon by the State to argue against the deemed lapse of acquisition. The Court directed the High Court to reconsider the matter in light of this judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to remand the cases indicates that it was primarily concerned with ensuring that the High Court had properly considered all relevant facts and legal precedents, particularly the decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.. The court emphasized that the High Court should determine whether the State had indeed taken possession of the land in accordance with the law. The court also took into account the submissions made by the landowners regarding proposals for realignment and de-acquisition of the land.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure that the High Court had considered all aspects of the case, particularly the factual issue of possession and the legal precedent set by the Indore Development Authority case. The court did not express a definitive view on the merits of the case, but rather directed the High Court to re-evaluate the matter.

The Supreme Court did not reject any alternative interpretations but rather directed the High Court to consider the matter afresh. The final decision was to remand the cases for a more thorough examination.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The High Court did not adequately consider the decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
• There was a need to verify the factual position regarding the possession of the land.
• The court wanted to ensure that the High Court considered all contentions of the parties.

“…the matters are required to be remanded to the High Court to decide the writ petitions afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra).”

“…we set aside the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court and remit the matters back to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra).”

“All the contentions which may be available to the respective parties are kept open to be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits as observed hereinabove.”

Key Takeaways

• Land acquisition cases under the 2013 Act may be subject to re-evaluation based on the principles laid down in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.
• The factual aspect of possession is critical in determining whether an acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• The State’s claim of possession through revenue records (Rapat/Rooznamcha) may not be sufficient if the landowners maintain physical possession.
• Landowners have the option to make representations for de-acquisition of their lands under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act.

This judgment emphasizes the need for a thorough examination of both legal precedents and factual circumstances in land acquisition cases. The Supreme Court’s decision to remand the cases back to the High Court indicates that these issues require careful consideration.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide and dispose of the writ petitions on remand at the earliest and preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the order. The court also clarified that the order of remand would not preclude the State Government from taking any appropriate decision on de-acquisition of the land. The landowners were also given liberty to make a representation to the State Government under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court must re-evaluate the land acquisition cases by taking into consideration the law laid down in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. and the factual aspect of possession. This case does not change the previous position of law but clarifies the procedure for the High Court to follow in similar cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana vs. Hira Singh does not provide a final resolution on the issue of deemed lapse of land acquisitions. Instead, it remands the cases to the High Court for a fresh review, emphasizing the importance of the Indore Development Authority case and the factual determination of possession. The judgment underscores the need for a balanced approach, considering both legal precedents and the specific circumstances of each case. The landowners also have been given liberty to make representation for de-acquisition of the land.