Date of the Judgment: 20 January 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 66
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed if the authorities have taken possession but not paid compensation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. This judgment is crucial for understanding the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings can be considered to have lapsed. The bench consisted of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.
Case Background
The case revolves around a dispute between the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and several landowners, including Bhagi Singh, regarding land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The DDA had acquired land, including Khasra No. 28, and claimed to have taken possession on March 21, 2007. However, the landowners argued 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, because physical possession was not taken, and compensation was not paid. The High Court of Delhi ruled in favor of the landowners, declaring the acquisition lapsed. The DDA appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 21 March 2007 | Delhi Development Authority (DDA) claims to have taken possession of Khasra No. 28 through the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC)/ L&B Department. |
| 2013 | The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 comes into force. |
| 2015 | The landowners file a writ petition (Writ Petition (C) No. 8291 of 2015) in the High Court of Delhi, claiming the land acquisition had lapsed. |
| High Court Decision | The High Court of Delhi rules in favor of the landowners, declaring the acquisition lapsed. |
| 20 January 2023 | The Supreme Court of India overturns the High Court’s decision, ruling in favor of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment, declared that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed because it found that physical possession of the land had not been taken. The High Court’s decision was based on its interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court’s ruling was contrary to the law established by the Supreme Court in previous judgments.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which 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 referred to Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with the government’s power to take possession of land after an award has been made.
The Supreme Court emphasized its previous ruling in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, a Constitution Bench decision, which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Arguments
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) contended that the High Court’s decision was incorrect because possession of the land had been taken on March 21, 2007, as evidenced by the panchnama and possession report. They argued that the High Court had misinterpreted Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and that the judgment was contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129.
The landowners, on the other hand, argued that the acquisition proceedings should be considered lapsed because the DDA had not taken physical possession of the land and had not paid compensation. They relied on a literal interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which, according to them, required both taking of physical possession and payment of compensation to avoid lapsing.
| Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Delhi Development Authority (DDA) |
|
| Landowners |
|
The innovativeness of the argument lies in the DDA’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified the meaning of “or” in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, arguing that it should be read as “nor” or “and.”
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, when the authorities claimed to have taken possession of the land.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in declaring that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, when the authorities claimed to have taken possession of the land. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision was incorrect. The Court relied on its previous decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, which clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” Therefore, if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse. Since the DDA had taken possession of the land on March 21, 2007, the acquisition proceedings were deemed valid. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | The Court relied on this Constitution Bench decision to interpret Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that if either possession is taken or compensation is paid, the acquisition does not lapse. The Court emphasized 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. |
| Section 16, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Statute | The Court referred to this section to emphasize that once possession has been taken under this provision, the land vests in the State. |
| Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Statute | The Court interpreted this section to clarify that the word “or” should be read as “nor” or “and” in the context of possession and compensation. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Delhi Development Authority (DDA): Possession of the land was taken on March 21, 2007. | The Court accepted this submission as valid, citing the panchnama and possession report. |
| Delhi Development Authority (DDA): The High Court’s decision is contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129. | The Court agreed with this submission, stating that the High Court had misinterpreted Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. |
| Landowners: Physical possession of the land was not taken. | The Court rejected this submission, stating that the DDA had taken possession as per the records. |
| Landowners: Compensation was not paid. | The Court clarified that under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid, the acquisition proceedings do not lapse. |
The Supreme Court’s judgment was based on the following key points:
The Supreme Court referred to its decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, where it was held that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, should be read as “nor” or “and”. This means that the acquisition proceedings lapse only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid.
The Court emphasized that the DDA had taken possession of the land on March 21, 2007, based on the panchnama and possession report.
The Court stated 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 Supreme Court, therefore, overturned the High Court’s decision and upheld the land acquisition by the DDA.
| Authority | How it was viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 | The Court followed this decision, using it as the basis for interpreting Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in the section should be read as “nor” or “and.” |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by its previous interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Court emphasized the importance of consistency in legal interpretation and the need to adhere to the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench. The Court also relied on the factual evidence that the DDA had taken possession of the land in 2007, and that the land had vested in the State. The court’s focus was on ensuring that land acquisition proceedings are not unduly delayed or invalidated, especially when the authorities have followed due process.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Adherence to Precedent | 40% |
| Factual Evidence of Possession | 35% |
| Legal Consistency | 25% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Issue: Did the acquisition lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
Has possession been taken?
Yes, possession was taken by DDA on 21.03.2007.
As per Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, if possession is taken, acquisition does not lapse.
Conclusion: Acquisition did not lapse. High Court’s decision overturned.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, should be read as “nor” or “and.”
- If either possession of the land has been taken or compensation has been paid, the land acquisition proceedings do not lapse.
- Once possession of land 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 importance of adhering to the Supreme Court’s interpretations of legal provisions, particularly those made by a Constitution Bench.
Directions
There were no specific directions given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, should be interpreted such that the word “or” is read as “nor” or “and”. This means that acquisition proceedings lapse only if both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. This case reaffirms the position of law laid down in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Bhagi Singh and Ors. has clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. By relying on its previous decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129, the Court has ensured that land acquisition proceedings are not deemed to have lapsed if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid. This judgment provides clarity for land acquisition matters and reinforces the importance of following established legal precedents.