LEGAL ISSUE: Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse if compensation is not paid, despite possession being taken.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition
Case Name: Delhi Development Authority vs. Shakuntla Devi and Ors.
Judgment Date: 20 January 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 622
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed if the authorities have taken possession of the land but not paid compensation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question related to land acquisition in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Shakuntla Devi and Ors. This case clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, particularly concerning the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings can be deemed to have lapsed. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case revolves around a land acquisition initiated by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on June 27, 1996. Subsequently, the award was passed on June 22, 1999. According to the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), the actual vacant and peaceful possession of the land in question, specifically Khasra No. 759(4-16), was taken on December 31, 2013. The original writ petitioner, Shakuntla Devi, held a 1/4th joint share in the land, equivalent to 1 bigha. The possession was handed over to the requisition agency after proper proceedings.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 27, 1996 | Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued. |
| June 22, 1999 | Award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC). |
| December 31, 2013 | Actual vacant possession of the land taken by the LAC and handed over to the requisition agency. |
| 20 January 2023 | Supreme Court judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. Shakuntla Devi and Ors. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment, allowed the writ petition filed by Shakuntla Devi, declaring that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court’s decision was based on the premise that compensation had not been paid or tendered to the original writ petitioner. However, the High Court did not dispute the fact that the Land Acquisition Collector had taken possession of the land and handed it over to the beneficiary on December 31, 2013.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013), which deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. This section states:
“(2) 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: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
The Supreme Court also referred to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which pertains to the notification for acquisition, and Section 31 of the same Act, which discusses payment of compensation.
Arguments
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) argued that the High Court erred in declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed, as the possession of the land had been taken on December 31, 2013. The DDA relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be read as “nor” or “and.” According to this interpretation, a lapse occurs only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid.
The respondent, Shakuntla Devi, contended that the acquisition should lapse as compensation had not been paid to her. The High Court agreed with this view, focusing on the non-payment of compensation as the primary reason for the lapse.
| Submissions | DDA’s Arguments | Shakuntla Devi’s Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act |
✓ The word “or” should be read as “nor” or “and”. ✓ Acquisition does not lapse if possession is taken, even if compensation is not paid. |
✓ Acquisition lapses if compensation is not paid, regardless of possession. |
| Reliance on Precedent | ✓ Relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. | ✓ Relied on the literal interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. |
| Factual Position |
✓ Possession was taken on December 31, 2013. ✓ Possession proceedings were properly documented. |
✓ Compensation was not paid or tendered to the petitioner. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, despite the fact that possession of the land had been taken.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act | The Supreme Court held that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed. | The Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” Since possession was taken, the non-payment of compensation did not result in a lapse of the acquisition. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | The Court followed the interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in this case. | Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| DDA’s submission that the acquisition proceedings should not lapse as possession was taken. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed with the DDA, stating that since possession was taken, the acquisition did not lapse, even if compensation was not paid. |
| Shakuntla Devi’s submission that the acquisition should lapse due to non-payment of compensation. | Rejected. The Supreme Court held that non-payment of compensation does not result in a lapse if possession has been taken. |
“How each authority was viewed by the Court?”
- Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129*: The Supreme Court followed this judgment, which held that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be read as “nor” or “and,” and therefore, if possession has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse even if compensation has not been paid.
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 Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in the section should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for a lapse. The fact that possession had been taken by the authorities on December 31, 2013, was a crucial factor in the Court’s decision.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on the interpretation of Section 24(2) | 40% |
| Reliance on the precedent set by Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | 30% |
| Importance of possession being taken by the authorities | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Judgment
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, stated:
“The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable in view of the decision of the Constitution bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.”
The Court emphasized that the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 had clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be read as “nor” or “and.” Therefore, the acquisition proceedings would only lapse if both possession had not been taken and compensation had not been paid. Since possession was taken in this case, the proceedings did not lapse.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and upheld the land acquisition. The Court noted that the High Court had not disputed the fact that possession of the land was taken on December 31, 2013.
The Court also reiterated the principle that once possession has been taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests in the State, and there is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
The Court concluded:
“Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Present appeal is accordingly allowed.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession of the land has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid.
- ✓ The word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.”
- ✓ Once possession has been taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests in the State, and there is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- ✓ This judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case. The primary outcome was the setting aside of the High Court’s judgment and the upholding of the land acquisition.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, must be interpreted as “nor” or “and.” This means that for land acquisition proceedings to lapse, both the conditions of non-possession and non-payment of compensation must be met. This decision reinforces the legal position established by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, and does not change the previous position of law, but rather clarifies and reaffirms it.
Conclusion
In the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Shakuntla Devi and Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the land acquisition, ruling that the proceedings did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because possession of the land had been taken by the authorities. This judgment reaffirms the interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, emphasizing that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for a lapse.