Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: DDA vs. Jagan Singh (2023) – Land Acquisition Act

Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 139
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J., Sanjay Karol, J.

Can land acquisition be invalidated if compensation isn’t paid after the government has taken possession? The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, addressed this critical question concerning land acquisition and compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 2013). The core issue revolved around whether the acquisition of land should be deemed to have lapsed if compensation was not paid, despite the authorities having taken physical possession of the land. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act 2013. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, and Sanjay Karol, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed against a decision by the High Court of Delhi. The High Court had ruled in favor of Jagan Singh, declaring that the land acquisition concerning his property had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013. This decision was based on the fact that while the DDA had taken physical possession of the land on 16 July 2007, compensation had not been paid to the original land owner. The High Court relied on a previous Supreme Court decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183] to support its decision.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment dated 24 January 2017, allowed the writ petition filed by Jagan Singh. The High Court declared that the land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, because the compensation had not been paid despite the authorities taking physical possession of the land. The DDA appealed this decision 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 deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under certain conditions.

Section 24(2) of the 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.”

Arguments

The primary contention of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was that the High Court’s decision was incorrect in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129]. The DDA argued that this ruling had overruled the earlier decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., which the High Court had relied upon.

The DDA contended that once possession of the land was taken, the acquisition proceedings could not be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, even if compensation had not been paid.

The respondent, Jagan Singh, had argued that since compensation was not paid, the acquisition should be considered lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, relying on the interpretation of the word “or” in the section.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in declaring that the land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, given that physical possession of the land had been taken by the authorities, but compensation had not been paid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reliance on the Pune Municipal Corporation case was incorrect because that decision had been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. The court emphasized that once possession of the land had been taken, the acquisition would not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, even if compensation had not been paid.

The Supreme Court stated that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 should be interpreted as “nor” or “and.” This means that for a land acquisition to lapse, both possession must not have been taken, and compensation must not have been paid.

The court quoted from Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129]:
“The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. 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. In other words, 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.”

The Court also observed that “Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by its earlier ruling in the case of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the interpretation provided by a Constitution Bench, which had clarified the correct reading of Section 24(2) of the Act 2013. The Court was also guided by the principle that once possession of land is taken by the State, the acquisition process is complete. The court’s reasoning was based on the need to avoid a situation where acquisition proceedings could be easily invalidated due to technicalities.

Key Takeaways

• Land acquisition proceedings do not automatically lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 if the government has taken physical possession of the land, even if compensation has not been paid.
• The word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for a lapse.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority is the binding precedent on this issue, overruling the earlier decision in Pune Municipal Corporation.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment, dismissing the original writ petition filed by the respondent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that once the possession of the land has been taken by the authorities, the acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, even if the compensation has not been paid. This judgment reinforces the position established in Indore Development Authority, clarifying that the word “or” in the section should be read as “nor” or “and.” This settles the legal position regarding the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act 2013.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. Jagan Singh & 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 land acquisition proceedings do not lapse if possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid, thereby overruling the High Court’s decision. This decision reinforces the binding precedent set by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority.