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

Date of the Judgment: February 17, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 138

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J., and Sanjay Karol, J.

Can a person who is not the recorded owner of a land challenge its acquisition? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, clarifying the conditions under which land acquisition proceedings can lapse. This case revolves around a dispute over land acquired by the Government of NCT of Delhi, and whether the original writ petitioner had the right to challenge the acquisition. The three-judge bench, consisting of Justices M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, and Sanjay Karol, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves a land acquisition dispute where the original writ petitioner, Dhannu (now represented by his heirs), challenged the acquisition of land by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The petitioner claimed 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 (Act, 2013) because possession had not been taken and compensation had not been paid. The government contended that the land belonged to the Gram Sabha, and therefore, the petitioner had no right to challenge the acquisition. The High Court of Delhi ruled in favor of the petitioner, leading to this appeal by the Government of NCT of Delhi to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment dated 16.11.2017, allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent, Dhannu, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183. The High Court held that the acquisition had lapsed because possession of the land was not taken. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the land belonged to the Gram Sabha and that the original writ petitioner had no right to challenge the acquisition. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not decide the question of ownership and kept it open.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision at the heart of this case is 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. It 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 considered the implications of its previous rulings, particularly the interpretation of the word “or” in Section 24(2) and the conditions for the lapse of acquisition proceedings.

Arguments

Government of NCT of Delhi’s Arguments:

• The land in question belonged to the Gram Sabha, not the original writ petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had no right to challenge the acquisition.
• The High Court erred in relying on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, which had been overruled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129.

Original Writ Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, as possession of the land had not been taken and compensation had not been paid.
• The petitioner relied on the High Court’s judgment, which had followed the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section but the following issues were considered:

1. Whether the High Court was right in entertaining the writ petition filed by a person who was not the recorded owner of the land.
2. Whether the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

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.
• Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 – Supreme Court of India.
• Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183 was overruled. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that this case was no longer good law.
• The decision in Indore Development Authority versus Manoharlal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 was followed. The Supreme Court applied the principles laid down in this case to the facts of the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The fact that the original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner of the land and had admitted that the land belonged to the Gram Sabha. This meant that the petitioner did not have the legal standing to challenge the acquisition.
• The overruling of the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. This meant that the High Court’s reliance on the overruled judgment was erroneous.
• The interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, as clarified in Indore Development Authority. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in the section should be read as “nor” or “and,” which means that the acquisition does not lapse if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid.

The Court’s reasoning emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal principles and ensuring that only those with a legal right to do so can challenge land acquisition proceedings.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Only recorded owners or those with a clear title to the land can challenge land acquisition proceedings.
• 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 acquisition proceedings do not lapse if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid.
• The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation has been overruled and is no longer valid.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not provide any specific directions other than quashing the High Court’s judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person who is not the recorded owner of the land cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, should be interpreted such that the acquisition does not lapse if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid. This decision reaffirms the position of law as laid down in Indore Development Authority and overrules the earlier position in Pune Municipal Corporation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the Government of NCT of Delhi, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the original writ petitioner, who was not the recorded owner of the land, had no right to challenge the acquisition. The Court also reiterated that the acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid, as clarified in Indore Development Authority. This decision clarifies the legal position on who can challenge land acquisition and the conditions for the lapse of such proceedings.