Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Govt. of NCT Delhi vs. Dinesh Kumar (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 28 April 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 389
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed if the government has taken possession of the land but has not yet paid compensation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, 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 clarifies the conditions under which a land acquisition can be deemed 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 involves a dispute over land acquisition in Delhi. The Government of NCT of Delhi acquired certain land, and the key point of contention was whether the acquisition had lapsed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013). The High Court of Delhi had ruled in favor of the original writ petitioner, declaring that the acquisition had lapsed because compensation had not been paid, even though possession was taken. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi allowed the writ petition, declaring that the land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court reasoned that since compensation had not been paid to the original writ petitioner, one of the two conditions for a deemed lapse under Section 24(2) was met. The Government of NCT of Delhi then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of this case 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 relevant portion of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 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 has interpreted this provision in previous cases, particularly in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129, which established that both conditions—non-payment of compensation and not taking possession—must be met for a deemed lapse of acquisition.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Govt. of NCT Delhi):

• The appellant argued that the possession of the land was taken on 31.12.2013.
• Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., the appellant contended that since possession was taken before the Act of 2013 came into force, there could be no deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

Respondent’s Arguments (Dinesh Kumar):

• The respondent argued that only a paper possession was taken and the actual/physical possession remained with the original writ petitioner.
• The respondent contended that since compensation was not paid, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue it addressed was:

1. Whether the acquisition of land lapses under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if the 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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provision:

• Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: This provision deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings if certain conditions are not met.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129* to state that the two conditions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 have to be satisfied for a deemed lapse of acquisition.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by its previous ruling in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The Court emphasized that both conditions—non-payment of compensation and not taking possession—must be met for a deemed lapse of acquisition. Since possession was taken on 31.12.2013, the court held that the acquisition did not lapse, irrespective of whether compensation was paid.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation, stating that the High Court’s reasoning was “just contrary to the law laid -down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra).” The Supreme Court emphasized that “for deemed lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, twin conditions of not taking possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are required to be satisfied.” The Court further clarified that “if one of the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is not met, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.” The Court also held that taking possession by drawing a punchnama was a valid mode of taking possession.

Key Takeaways

• For a land acquisition to lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, both conditions—non-payment of compensation AND not taking possession—must be satisfied.
• If possession of the land has been taken, the acquisition will not lapse, even if compensation has not been paid.
• Taking possession by drawing a punchnama is a legally valid mode of taking possession.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, but the effect of the judgment is that the land acquisition by the Government of NCT of Delhi remains valid.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that both conditions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, i.e., non-payment of compensation and not taking possession, must be satisfied for a deemed lapse of acquisition. This judgment reaffirms the position of law established in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., and does not change the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Government of NCT of Delhi, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court clarified that a land acquisition does not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to the dual conditions specified in Section 24(2) for a deemed lapse of land acquisition.