Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Delhi Development Authority vs. Shyamo & Ors. (20 January 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2023
Citation: Civil Appeal No.365 of 2023 (@ SLP (C) No.1503 of 2023) (@ Diary No.7125 of 2022)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed simply because compensation wasn’t directly paid to a person claiming a share in the land, even if possession has been taken by the authorities? This was the central question before the Supreme Court in a recent case involving the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The Court addressed this issue, clarifying the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The case revolves around land in Village Ghonda Gujaran Khadar, Delhi, which was subject to acquisition for planned development. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) initiated the acquisition process with a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 23 September 1989. An award was declared on 19 June 1992. The DDA took actual vacant physical possession of the land on 21 March 2007. The original writ petitioner, Shyamo, claimed a 1/12th share in the land. The recorded owners/heirs did not come forward to receive compensation, so it remained unpaid.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment dated 20 December 2017, allowed the writ petition filed by Shyamo, declaring that the acquisition 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 relied on its earlier decision in Gyanender Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., which in turn was based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Pune Municipal Corporation case has been expressly overruled by a Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others.

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. It states that if physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid for five years or more before the commencement of the 2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed. The Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that for the acquisition to lapse, both possession must not have been taken, and compensation must not have been paid. The relevant portion of the judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal is as follows:

“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.”

Arguments

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) argued that:

• Possession of the land was taken on 21 March 2007, and possession proceedings were prepared.
• The original writ petitioner, Shyamo, was not the recorded owner, and therefore, there was no obligation to tender compensation directly to him.
• The High Court erred in relying on the overruled decision of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that:

• The acquisition proceedings should lapse as compensation was not tendered to the original writ petitioner.
• The High Court correctly applied the law as it stood at the time of the judgment, based on the decision in Gyanender Singh.

The innovativeness in the argument by the DDA was that it highlighted that the High Court’s decision was based on a judgment that had been overruled by a larger bench of the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that the acquisition with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?
2. Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition without deciding the ownership and title of the original writ petitioner in the land in question?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 – Supreme Court of India: This case was relied upon by the High Court but was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
• Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 – Supreme Court of India: This Constitution Bench decision overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: This section deals with the issuance of notification for land acquisition.
• 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.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183*: Overruled and therefore not followed.
• Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129*: Followed as it is the law laid down by the Constitution Bench.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual aspect that possession of the land had been taken by the DDA. The Court also emphasized the legal principle that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be read as “nor” or “and,” as clarified in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. The fact that the original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner also weighed in the Court’s decision, as there was no obligation to tender compensation directly to him at the relevant time. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the High Court had relied on a judgment that had been overruled.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as clarified in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which held that the word “or” should be read as “nor” or “and.” The Court also emphasized that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition without first establishing the ownership and title of the original writ petitioner. The Supreme Court stated, “While deciding any ownership and title of the original writ petitioner in the land in question, the High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition.” The court further noted, “For entertaining any writ petition the ownership and title has to be first established and proved and only thereafter a person claiming ownership and title can be permitted to file the writ petition challenging the acquisition/lapse of acquisition proceedings.” The Court also stated, “Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand and more particularly when the possession of the land in question was taken over by drawing the panchnama and preparing the possession proceedings and the same was handed over to the DDA…the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court…is unsustainable.”

Key Takeaways

• Land acquisition proceedings do not automatically lapse if compensation is not tendered to every claimant, particularly if possession has been taken by the authorities.
• The word “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid for the acquisition to lapse.
• A person claiming a share in the land must first establish their ownership and title before challenging the acquisition proceedings.
• High Courts should not entertain writ petitions challenging land acquisition if the ownership of the petitioner is not established.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and sets a precedent for future cases involving land acquisition and compensation disputes. It also emphasizes the need for claimants to establish their ownership before challenging acquisition proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and dismissed the original writ petition filed by the respondent.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for land acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both possession must not have been taken, and compensation must not have been paid. The judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) as clarified in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. It also establishes that a claimant must prove ownership before challenging land acquisition. This case reaffirms the position of law as laid down in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and overrules the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as laid down in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the land acquisition proceedings did not lapse because possession had been taken, and the original writ petitioner had not established ownership. This judgment reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as clarified in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and emphasizes the importance of establishing ownership before challenging land acquisition proceedings.