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

Date of the Judgment: May 01, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 473

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

Can a land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed if the compensation for the acquired land was not paid to the land owner, even if the possession of the land was taken by the acquiring authority? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Delhi Development Authority. 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 the acquisition lapses if either possession is taken or compensation is paid. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with Justice Rajesh Bindal authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a land parcel of 100 square yards in the Revenue Estate of Village Dichaun Kalan, Delhi. Anita Singh (Respondent No. 1) claimed to have purchased this land through a sale deed dated March 4, 2005. However, this land was subject to acquisition by the Delhi Development Authority (Appellant). The initial notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued 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, under Section 11 of the 1894 Act.

In 2016, Anita Singh filed a writ petition invoking Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, arguing that neither compensation had been paid to her nor had the possession of the land been taken by the acquiring authority. She thus contended that the acquisition had lapsed. The Land Acquisition Collector, in response, stated that possession of the land was taken on February 10, 2012, except for a small portion where a structure existed. The compensation for the land was deposited with the Reference Court on December 27, 2013, as Anita Singh was not the recorded owner and there was a dispute regarding ownership.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition filed by Anita Singh, concluding that the land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation was not paid to her. The Delhi Development Authority then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of India.

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 initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act 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 considered the provisions of Section 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deal with the payment of compensation and the deposit of compensation in court in cases of disputes.

Arguments

Appellant (Delhi Development Authority) Arguments:

• 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 Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki & Ors.
• It was submitted that the Constitution Bench had clarified that compliance with either of the two conditions—taking possession of the land or payment of compensation—is sufficient to prevent the acquisition from lapsing.
• The appellant contended that, although Anita Singh was not the recorded owner, the compensation was deposited with the Reference Court on December 27, 2013, due to the ownership dispute. This, according to the appellant, constituted tendering of compensation.
• The appellant also pointed out that Anita Singh had applied to the Land Acquisition Collector on May 6, 2009, for the release of compensation, acknowledging the acquisition.
• The land was being utilized for the construction of a 100-meter wide road under the planned development of Delhi, a project of great public importance, which needed to be completed before August 15, 2023, for the Amrit Mahotsav.

Respondent (Anita Singh) Arguments:

• The respondent argued that since neither compensation was paid to her nor possession taken, the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• She contended that she was the rightful owner of the land, having purchased it through a sale deed dated March 4, 2005.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the acquisition of land lapses under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 if either possession is taken or compensation is 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:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court followed the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others [(2020) 8 SCC 129]* which clarified that either taking possession or paying compensation is sufficient to prevent lapse of acquisition. This case overruled Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki & Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183]*
• The court interpreted Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013* to mean that the acquisition lapses only if neither possession is taken nor compensation is paid.
• The court referred to Section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894* to explain the procedure for depositing compensation in court when there are ownership disputes.
• The court referred to Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894* to explain the procedure for taking possession of land by the State.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the precedent set by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others. The court emphasized that the purpose of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act was to address situations where the authorities had failed to take action for an extended period. However, in this case, the authorities had taken possession of the land and deposited the compensation in the Reference Court due to a dispute in ownership. The court also considered the public interest aspect of the project, which was the construction of a road that would help decongest Delhi.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The court held that the acquisition had not lapsed because the authorities had taken possession of the land and deposited the compensation in the Reference Court due to the ownership dispute. The court emphasized that compliance with either of these conditions is sufficient to prevent the acquisition from lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court reiterated that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and” in light of the Constitution Bench decision. The court also emphasized that once possession has been taken, the land vests with the State.

The court quoted the following from Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others:

“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 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 the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.”

“When the State has acquired the land and award has been passed, land vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances. The act of vesting of the land in the State is with possession, any person retaining the possession, thereafter, has to be treated as trespasser and has no right to possess the land which vests in the State free from all encumbrances.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, land acquisition proceedings do not lapse if either possession of the land has been taken or compensation has been paid.
• Deposit of compensation in the Reference Court due to ownership disputes is considered as compliance with the requirement of payment of compensation.
• Once possession of the land is taken by the State, the land vests with the State, and any person retaining possession thereafter is considered a trespasser.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others in interpreting Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

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 has been taken or compensation has been paid. This judgment reaffirms the position of law as laid down in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, which overruled the earlier view in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki & Ors.

Conclusion

In the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Anita Singh, the Supreme Court upheld the land acquisition, clarifying that the acquisition does not lapse if either possession is taken or compensation is paid. The court emphasized the importance of the precedent set by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others. This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and reinforces the legal position on land acquisition in India.