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 tendered to the original landowners, despite the possession of the land having been taken.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs. Rambir and Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 20 January 2023
Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 40
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed if the compensation hasn’t been given to the original landowners, even if the government has taken possession of the land? The Supreme Court recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and landowners, clarifying the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court’s decision has significant implications for land acquisition disputes across India.
Case Background
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, in a writ petition, declared that the acquisition of the land in question had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). The High Court based its decision on the fact that compensation had not been tendered to the original landowners, despite the DDA claiming to have taken possession of the land in 2007. The DDA appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007 | DDA claims to have taken possession of the land and handed it over to the beneficiary department. |
| Prior to 2017 | Land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. |
| 2017 | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi declared that the acquisition of the land in question had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in Writ Petition (C) No. 5441 of 2017. |
| 2023 | Supreme Court of India heard the appeal of the DDA against the High Court order. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi ruled in favor of the landowners, stating that the land acquisition had lapsed because compensation had not been tendered to the original landowners as required under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 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. The DDA appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s judgment was incorrect in light of a later Constitution Bench decision.
Legal Framework
The 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 if certain conditions are not met. The relevant portion of 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 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which pertains to the payment of compensation.
Arguments
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) argued that the High Court’s decision was incorrect because the possession of the land had been taken in 2007. The DDA contended that the High Court wrongly applied the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which had been overruled by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
The landowners argued that since the compensation was not tendered to them, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. They relied on the High Court’s judgment and the precedent set by Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| DDA’s Submission |
|
| Landowners’ Submission |
|
The innovativeness of the argument by the DDA lies in pointing out that the High Court had relied on a judgment that had already been overruled by a Constitution Bench, thereby making the High Court’s judgment unsustainable.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in this judgment. However, the core issue was whether the High Court’s decision to declare the acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 was correct, given that possession had been taken but compensation had not been tendered, and in light of the overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.
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 land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 due to non-payment of compensation? | The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was unsustainable. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified that if possession has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse even if compensation has not been paid. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| 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 by Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. |
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon to overrule the High Court’s judgment. |
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: This section deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
- Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section pertains to the payment of compensation.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the DDA and set aside the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the High Court’s judgment was unsustainable because it relied on Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which had been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| DDA’s submission that possession was taken in 2007 | Accepted as a fact. |
| DDA’s submission that the High Court wrongly applied Pune Municipal Corporation | Accepted, as Pune Municipal Corporation was overruled. |
| Landowners’ submission that non-payment of compensation leads to lapse | Rejected, in light of Indore Development Authority. |
The following authorities were viewed by the Court as follows:
- Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183* was overruled.
- Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129* was relied upon to overturn the High Court’s decision.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 had already clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The Court emphasized that if possession of the land had been taken, the acquisition proceedings would not lapse, even if compensation had not been paid. The Court’s reasoning was also based on the principle that a judgment that has been overruled cannot be relied upon.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation | 60% |
| Clarification by Indore Development Authority on Section 24(2) | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 and the binding precedent set by the Constitution Bench.
The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, as the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 had already settled the legal position.
The decision was reached by applying the clear legal position established by the Constitution Bench to the facts of the case.
The Supreme Court reasoned that since possession had been taken by the DDA in 2007, the acquisition proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, even if compensation had not been paid.
The reasons for the decision are:
- The High Court relied on a judgment that had been overruled.
- The Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 had clarified that if possession is taken, non-payment of compensation does not result in a lapse of acquisition.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (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.”
There were no majority or minority opinions in this case.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle of legal certainty and the binding nature of precedents set by larger benches. It clarifies that once possession of land is taken by the authorities, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, even if compensation has not been paid. This has implications for land acquisition disputes across India, as it clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the established interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Key Takeaways
- 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 if possession of the land has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid.
- The interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 is binding on all courts.
- Rulings based on overruled judgments are unsustainable.
This decision will likely lead to the dismissal of many similar cases where landowners have claimed a lapse in acquisition proceedings solely due to non-payment of compensation, despite the government having taken possession of the land.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court’s order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that once possession of land has been taken by the authorities, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, even if compensation has not been paid. This decision reaffirms the position of law established by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 and overrules the position taken in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Delhi Development Authority vs. Rambir 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 once possession of the land is taken, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse even if compensation has not been paid. This decision reaffirms the binding nature of Constitution Bench decisions and provides clarity on the issue of land acquisition lapses.