Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Delhi Development Authority vs. Anita Singh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 1, 2023

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2994 of 2023

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed if the acquiring authority has either taken possession of the land or paid compensation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the Delhi Development Authority and a landowner. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, specifically whether both taking possession and payment of compensation are required to avoid the lapsing of land acquisition. The bench comprised Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed by Anita Singh (Respondent no. 1) in the High Court of Delhi. She claimed that her land, purchased in 2005, was subject to acquisition proceedings initiated by the Delhi Development Authority (Appellant). The land was part of Khasra No. 140/9/1 in Village Dichaun Kalan, Delhi. The acquisition process began with a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on April 7, 2006, followed by a Section 6 notification on April 4, 2007. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award on December 30, 2008. In 2016, the respondent filed a writ petition arguing that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as neither compensation had been paid to her nor had possession of the land been taken.

The Land Acquisition Collector stated that possession was taken on February 10, 2012, except for a small portion with structures. The compensation was deposited with the Reference Court on December 27, 2013, as the respondent was not the recorded owner of the land. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that non-payment of compensation resulted in the lapsing of the acquisition.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondent No. 1, stating that the acquisition had lapsed due to non-compliance with Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, specifically regarding the payment of compensation to the Respondent No. 1. The Delhi Development Authority appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

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 (the 2013 Act). This section addresses the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the 1894 Act). Specifically, 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.”

The Supreme Court also considered Section 31 of the 1894 Act, which deals with the payment of compensation, and Section 16 of the 1894 Act, which deals with the taking of possession. Section 31(1) mandates the Collector to tender payment of compensation to the persons interested, and Section 31(2) provides for deposit of compensation in court in case of refusal to receive it or dispute as to the title. Section 16 states that the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances after possession is taken.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Delhi Development Authority):

• The appellant argued that the High Court’s order was unsustainable in light of the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, which overruled the earlier judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki & Ors..
• The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority held that compliance with either taking possession or paying compensation is sufficient to sustain the acquisition.
• The respondent was not the recorded owner of the land, though she claimed to have purchased it in 2005. The compensation was deposited with the Reference Court due to the ownership dispute.
• The land was being used for a project of great public importance (UER-II), which was crucial for de-congestion of Delhi and had to be completed before August 15, 2023.
• The deposit of compensation with the Reference Court amounted to tendering the compensation, especially in a case of disputed ownership.
• The respondent had admitted knowledge of the acquisition by filing an application for release of compensation in 2009, stating that she had purchased the land through a general power of attorney.

Respondent’s Arguments (Anita Singh):

• The respondent argued that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as neither compensation was paid to her nor was possession of the land taken by the acquiring authority.
• The High Court agreed with the respondent, ruling that the non-payment of compensation resulted in the lapsing of the acquisition.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the acquisition of land lapses under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession of the land has been taken or compensation has been paid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [(2020) 8 SCC 129] – Supreme Court of India: The Constitution Bench judgment which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It held that either taking possession or paying compensation is sufficient to prevent lapsing of acquisition.
• Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183] – Supreme Court of India: This judgment was overruled by Indore Development Authority. It had previously held that both taking possession and paying compensation were required to prevent lapsing of acquisition.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This provision deals with the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings.
• Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the issuance of notification for land acquisition.
• Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the declaration of intended acquisition.
• Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the award by the Collector.
• Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the taking of possession.
• Section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the payment of compensation.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the acquisition had not lapsed, as either possession had been taken or compensation had been paid. The deposit of compensation with the Reference Court was deemed sufficient compliance due to the ownership dispute.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [(2020) 8 SCC 129]*: The Court followed this Constitution Bench judgment, which clarified that either taking possession or paying compensation is sufficient to prevent lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183]*: The Court noted that this judgment was overruled by Indore Development Authority, and thus, was not applicable.
• Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: The Court interpreted this section in light of the Indore Development Authority judgment, concluding that the word “or” should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that either possession or compensation is sufficient.
• Section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: The Court referred to this section to justify the deposit of compensation with the Reference Court in cases of ownership disputes, which was considered a valid form of tendering compensation.

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 2013 Act, as clarified by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others. The Court emphasized that the purpose of the 2013 Act was not to revive stale claims or invalidate concluded proceedings. The Court also considered the public interest involved in the project for which the land was acquired. The Court noted that the respondent was not the recorded owner of the land and the compensation was deposited with the Reference Court due to the ownership dispute. The court also noted that the respondent had knowledge of the acquisition proceedings and had applied for release of compensation before the Land Acquisition Collector.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that both possession and payment of compensation were required for the acquisition not to lapse. The Court emphasized that the deposit of compensation with the Reference Court was a valid form of tendering compensation in a case of disputed ownership and that the respondent was not the recorded owner of the land. The court also emphasized the public importance of the project for which the land was acquired.

“The Constitution Bench of this Court in Indore Development Authority’s case (supra) has opined that satisfaction of either of the conditions namely either taking possession of the acquired land or payment of compensation to the landowners would be sufficient to save the acquisition from being lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.”

“The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non- deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.”

“In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non- deposit of compensation in court.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, either taking possession of the land or paying compensation is sufficient to prevent the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings.
• Deposit of compensation with the Reference Court in cases of disputed ownership is considered valid compliance.
• The judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others is the binding precedent on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• Landowners cannot claim a lapse in acquisition if compensation has been tendered, even if they have not received it due to their own actions.
• The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 24(2) is not to revive stale claims or invalidate concluded proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition of land does not lapse if either possession of the land has been taken or compensation has been paid. This decision reinforces the position of law established in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, clarifying that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be interpreted as “nor” or “and”. This case reaffirms that either of the two conditions is sufficient to save the acquisition from lapsing, thus overruling the previous position of law in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki & Ors.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Delhi Development Authority vs. Anita Singh & Ors. reaffirms the principle that either taking possession of land or paying compensation is sufficient to prevent the lapsing of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of the provision and emphasizes the importance of adhering to established legal precedents, especially the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others. The Court’s decision also underscores the public interest in completing land acquisition projects and ensures that concluded proceedings are not easily reopened.