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 physical possession is taken and compensation is not paid, or vice versa.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs. Narvada Devi and Ors.
[Judgment Date]: February 9, 2023
Date of the Judgment: February 9, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 110
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can land acquisition proceedings be invalidated if the authorities have taken possession of the land but haven’t paid compensation, or if compensation has been paid but possession hasn’t been taken? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and a landowner, Narvada Devi. The court clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, settling a crucial point of law. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar.
Case Background
The case revolves around a dispute over land acquisition in Village Pehladpur Bangar, National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had acquired land, including a portion owned by Narvada Devi. Narvada Devi filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi, claiming that the 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 “Act, 2013”). She argued that neither physical possession of her land had been taken nor had compensation been tendered to her.
The DDA countered that it had released compensation to the Land and Building Department, GNCTD, in 2005. The DDA also stated that while it had taken possession of a large portion of the acquired land, some parts remained under illegal occupation. The DDA further contended that Narvada Devi was an encroacher on government land.
Despite the DDA’s claims, the High Court ruled in favor of Narvada Devi, declaring that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The High Court, however, also stated that Narvada Devi would be entitled to compensation as per the Act, 2013. The DDA then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 09.08.2005 | DDA released compensation of Rs. 80,40,76,004 to L&B Department, GNCTD. |
| 31.08.2005 | DDA claims to have taken physical possession of 457 Bigha 08 Biswa of land in Village Pehladpur Bangar. |
| 2016 | Narvada Devi filed Writ Petition (C) No. 3383 of 2016 in the High Court of Delhi. |
| 2023 | Supreme Court judgment on February 9, 2023. |
Course of Proceedings
Narvada Devi filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi, seeking a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court allowed the writ petition, stating that the acquisition was deemed to have lapsed because physical possession of the land had not been taken nor compensation tendered to the petitioner. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core legal issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of 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 24(2) 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 referred to Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with taking possession of land after an award has been made. The court also considered Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with the payment of compensation.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellant (Delhi Development Authority):
- The DDA argued that it had released the compensation amount to the Land and Building Department, GNCTD, in 2005.
- The DDA claimed that it had taken physical possession of a significant portion of the land in 2005.
- The DDA contended that the remaining area was under illegal occupation, and the original writ petitioner was an encroacher.
- The DDA relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Arguments by the Respondent (Narvada Devi):
- The respondent argued that neither physical possession of the land was taken nor was compensation paid to her.
- The respondent claimed that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellant (DDA) | Sub-Submissions by Respondent (Narvada Devi) |
|---|---|---|
| Lapse of Acquisition | ✓ Compensation was released to L&B Department. ✓ Physical possession of a large portion was taken. ✓ Remaining land under illegal occupation. ✓ Relied on Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129. |
✓ Neither physical possession taken nor compensation paid. ✓ Acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. |
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 declaring that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. | The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed. | The Court relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and”. The court stated that if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid, the acquisition does not lapse. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | The Supreme Court followed the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, as laid down by the Constitution Bench in this case. The Court reiterated that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and”. |
The Supreme 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: Deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
- Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Deals with taking possession of land after an award has been made.
- Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Deals with the payment of compensation.
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| DDA’s claim that compensation was released and possession was taken. | The Court accepted DDA’s claim that compensation was released to the L&B Department and that possession of a large portion of the land was taken. |
| Narvada Devi’s claim that neither possession was taken nor compensation was paid. | The Court rejected Narvada Devi’s claim, relying on the fact that the DDA had released the compensation and taken possession of a significant portion of the land. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The court followed the decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129*. The court reiterated that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and”. The Court held that if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid, the acquisition does not lapse.
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 Act, 2013, as clarified by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129. The court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that the acquisition proceedings would lapse only if both possession was not taken and compensation was not paid. The court also considered the fact that the DDA had released compensation and taken possession of a substantial portion of the land, even though some of it was under illegal occupation.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Reliance on precedent | 40% |
| Factual analysis of possession and compensation | 35% |
| Interpretation of Section 24(2) | 25% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning:
The court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of Section 24(2), stating that it was contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129. The court emphasized that the High Court had failed to appreciate the reasons for not taking actual vacant possession of the remaining land. The court also noted that the High Court had incorrectly stated that the original writ petitioner would be entitled to compensation as per the Act, 2013, even after declaring that the acquisition had lapsed.
The Supreme Court stated, “The view taken by the High Court is just contrary to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129.”
The court further observed, “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.”
The Supreme Court also noted, “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.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 should be read as “nor” or “and.”
- Land acquisition proceedings will only lapse under Section 24(2) if both physical possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid.
- If either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse.
- Landowners cannot claim a lapse of acquisition proceedings if compensation has been tendered, even if they refused to accept it or sought a reference for higher compensation.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the original writ petition. The Court did not give any specific directions regarding the land in question.
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 should be read as “nor” or “and”. This clarifies the legal position regarding the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under this section. This judgment reinforces the interpretation given by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 and does not change the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. Narvada Devi and Ors. 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 the High Court erred in declaring that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The Supreme Court emphasized that the acquisition proceedings only lapse if neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid. This judgment provides clarity on a critical aspect of land acquisition law in India.
Category
Parent Category: Land Acquisition Law
Child Categories:
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Lapse of Land Acquisition
- Possession of Land
- Payment of Compensation
- Delhi Development Authority
Parent Category: Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Child Categories:
- Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
FAQ
Q: What is the main issue in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Narvada Devi?
A: The main issue was whether 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.
Q: What does Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, say about the lapse of land acquisition proceedings?
A: Section 24(2) states that land acquisition proceedings lapse if an award was made five years or more before the commencement of the Act, and neither physical possession of the land was taken nor compensation was paid.
Q: How did the Supreme Court interpret the word “or” in Section 24(2)?
A: The Supreme Court interpreted the word “or” as “nor” or “and,” meaning that the acquisition proceedings would only lapse if both possession was not taken and compensation was not paid.
Q: What was the High Court’s decision, and why did the Supreme Court overturn it?
A: The High Court had declared that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, stating that the High Court’s view was contrary to the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Q: What is the practical implication of this judgment?
A: The judgment clarifies that land acquisition proceedings will not lapse if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid. Landowners cannot claim a lapse of acquisition proceedings if compensation has been tendered, even if they refused to accept it.