Supreme Court settles land acquisition lapses: No Possession, No Compensation, Acquisition Lapses (20 April 2017)

Can the government acquire land without taking possession or paying compensation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a series of land acquisition cases. The Court emphasized that if the government fails to take possession of the land or pay compensation within five years, the acquisition lapses under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This judgment clarifies the rights of landowners in such situations. The bench comprised Justices Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi. Justice Kurian Joseph authored the judgment.

Case Background

The cases before the Supreme Court involved landowners who had not received compensation for their land. Additionally, the government had not taken possession of their land. These landowners were the original owners of the land. The government had initiated acquisition proceedings. However, they failed to complete the process within the stipulated time.

The landowners had not been paid, nor had the government taken possession. There was no stay order preventing the government from acting. The landowners sought relief based on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This section addresses situations where land acquisition proceedings were initiated under previous laws. 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.”

This provision stipulates that if an award was made five years before the 2013 Act, and neither possession was taken, nor compensation paid, the acquisition lapses. The government then has to start the acquisition afresh.

Arguments

The Government of NCT of Delhi argued that the acquisition should be upheld. However, the landowners contended that the acquisition had lapsed. They argued that the government failed to take possession or pay compensation within the stipulated time.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues. However, the core issue was whether the land acquisition 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

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The decision was based on the plain reading of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Judgment

The Court did not cite any authorities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily based on the clear and unambiguous language of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court emphasized that the government’s failure to take possession or pay compensation within five years resulted in the lapse of the acquisition proceedings. The court was also influenced by the fact that there were no stay orders preventing the government from acting.

The Court stated, “Neither having been done within five years, as contemplated under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, we find no merit in these appeals, which are, accordingly, dismissed.”

The Court reiterated, “These are the cases of the original owners where neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid to the respondents.”

The Court also noted, “It is also brought to the notice of the court that there was no stay operating, which prevented the appellant(s) from taking possession or paying compensation to the respondents.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Land acquisition proceedings lapse if the government fails to take possession or pay compensation within five years of the award.
• ✓ Landowners have a right to have their land acquisition proceedings lapse if the government does not act within the specified time.
• ✓ The government must initiate fresh acquisition proceedings if it still intends to acquire the land.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions in this judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the timelines stipulated in Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It clarifies that mere initiation of acquisition proceedings is not enough. The government must complete the process by taking possession and paying compensation within the stipulated time.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of the government. The Court held that the land acquisition had lapsed. This was because the government failed to take possession or pay compensation within five years, as required by Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This judgment protects the rights of landowners. It ensures that the government adheres to the timelines specified in the law.