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 compensation is not paid, despite possession being taken.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs. Jagan Singh & Ors.
Judgment Date: 17 February 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 943 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No. 3117 of 2023) (@ Diary No. 32553 of 2022)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J., and Sanjay Karol, J.
Can land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed if the acquiring authority has taken possession of the land but not paid compensation? This question was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court of India. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed a decision by the High Court of Delhi, which had ruled that the acquisition of land was deemed to have lapsed because compensation had not been paid. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, especially in light of a previous overruling of a precedent. The three-judge bench consisted of Justice M.R. Shah, Justice C.T. Ravikumar, and Justice Sanjay Karol.
Case Background
The case involves a land acquisition where the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) took physical possession of the land on July 16, 2007. The original writ petitioner (respondent no. 1), argued before the High Court of Delhi that the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act of 2013) because compensation had not been paid. The High Court, relying on a previous Supreme Court decision, agreed with the petitioner and declared the acquisition lapsed. The DDA then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| July 16, 2007 | Physical possession of the subject land was taken by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). |
| January 24, 2017 | High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition and declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed. |
| February 17, 2023 | Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment, setting aside the High Court’s decision. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment dated January 24, 2017, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent, declaring that the land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. This decision was primarily based on the fact that compensation had not been paid to the original petitioner, and relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183]. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) then 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. This section deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings under certain conditions. The Supreme Court also considered previous interpretations of this section, particularly the overruled judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183], and the subsequent clarification by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129].
The relevant portion of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as discussed in the judgment, 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 argument of the original writ petitioner (respondent no. 1) was that since the compensation had not been paid, the land acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. This argument was based on the interpretation of the word “or” in the section, which, according to the petitioner, meant that if either possession was not taken or compensation was not paid, the acquisition would lapse.
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA), on the other hand, argued that the High Court’s decision was incorrect because the physical possession of the land was taken on July 16, 2007. It relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129], which had overruled the previous interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The DDA contended that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that the acquisition would only lapse if both possession was not taken and compensation was not paid.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Respondent’s Submission |
|
| Appellant’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed was:
✓ Whether the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if physical possession of the land has been taken but compensation has not been paid.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the acquisition lapses if compensation is not paid, despite possession being taken? | The Supreme Court held that the acquisition does not lapse if possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid. The court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 should be read as “nor” or “and” based on the decision in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129]. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
✓ Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183] – This case was initially relied upon by the High Court but was later overruled by the Supreme Court.
✓ Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129] – This Constitution Bench decision overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183] and clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
✓ Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – This section was central to the dispute, concerning the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183] | Supreme Court of India | Overruled |
| Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129] | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Parliament of India | Interpreted |
Judgment
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, stating that the acquisition did not lapse because possession of the land had been taken on July 16, 2007. The Court applied the law laid down in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129], which clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 should be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that the acquisition would only lapse if both possession had not been taken and compensation had not been paid.
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Respondent’s submission that acquisition lapses if compensation is not paid. | Rejected, as possession was already taken. |
| Appellant’s submission that acquisition does not lapse if possession is taken. | Accepted, based on the precedent set in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129]. |
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183] | The Court noted that this case was specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129]. |
| Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129] | The Court followed this judgment, which clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as clarified by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129]. The Court emphasized that once possession of the land has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse, even if compensation has not been paid. This interpretation was crucial in overturning the High Court’s decision. The court also placed emphasis on the fact that the previous judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183], was specifically overruled. The Court’s reasoning was therefore based on the binding precedent of Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129].
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Following binding precedent | 60% |
| Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 | 40% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:
The Supreme Court stated:
“In the said decision it is specifically observed and held that once the possession was taken over there shall not be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.”
“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 view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) and applying the same to the facts in the case on hand the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed is unsustainable.”
The court rejected the argument that non-payment of compensation alone would cause the acquisition to lapse. It emphasized that the key factor was whether possession had been taken. The court also clarified that the overruled judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183] could no longer be relied upon.
Key Takeaways
✓ Land acquisition proceedings do not automatically lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if possession of the land has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid.
✓ The word “or” in Section 24(2) should be interpreted as “nor” or “and,” meaning both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for the acquisition to lapse.
✓ The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183] has been overruled and cannot be relied upon for interpreting Section 24(2).
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than setting aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissing the original writ petition.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that once the physical possession of the land is taken by the acquiring authority, the land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, even if compensation has not been paid. This decision reinforces the position of law established in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129], which overruled the earlier interpretation of Section 24(2) in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183].
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 once possession of the land is taken, the acquisition does not lapse, even if compensation has not been paid. This decision reinforces the importance of the precedent set in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others [(2020) 8 SCC 129] and provides clarity on the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings can be deemed to have lapsed.