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

Date of the Judgment: 10 February 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 1212

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can land acquisition proceedings be nullified if the government has taken possession of the land, even if compensation hasn’t been fully paid? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question concerning land acquisition, focusing on 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 land acquisition can be deemed to have lapsed. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around a land acquisition dispute where the Government of NCT of Delhi acquired land, taking possession on March 12, 1981. The original writ petitioner, Sushil Kumar Gupta, challenged the acquisition, arguing that it had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, because compensation had not been paid. The High Court of Delhi, relying on a previous Supreme Court decision, had ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the acquisition lapsed.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi had ruled that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed based on the non-payment of compensation, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., [(2014) 3 SCC 183]. The Government of NCT of Delhi appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering that similar orders by the High Court had been challenged and that the High Court’s decision was based on a judgment that had been overruled.

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 if certain conditions are not met. The relevant portion of the section, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, states:

“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.”

The Supreme Court clarified that the word “or” in the section should be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both conditions—non-possession and non-payment of compensation—must be met for the acquisition to lapse. The court also referred to Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with the payment of compensation, and Section 16 of the same Act, which deals with the taking of possession.

Arguments

The primary argument of the respondent (original writ petitioner) was that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, because compensation had not been paid, despite the government taking possession of the land. The High Court agreed with this argument, relying on the Pune Municipal Corporation case. The appellant (Government of NCT of Delhi) argued that the High Court’s decision was incorrect because it relied on a judgment that had been overruled by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., [(2020) 8 SCC 129]. The appellant contended that since possession had been taken, the acquisition could not lapse even if compensation was not paid.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues, but the core issue was:

✓ Whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, given that possession was taken but compensation was allegedly not paid.

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:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that since possession of the land was taken on March 12, 1981, the acquisition did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, even if compensation was not paid. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) must be read as “nor” or “and,” as clarified in Indore Development Authority, meaning both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for a lapse.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Pune Municipal Corporation [(2014) 3 SCC 183]: The Supreme Court explicitly stated that this judgment was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. The High Court’s reliance on this overruled judgment was deemed incorrect.

✓ Indore Development Authority [(2020) 8 SCC 129]: The Supreme Court followed this judgment, which clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” This interpretation was crucial to the Court’s decision.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the precedent set by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. The court’s reasoning emphasized the need for both non-possession and non-payment of compensation for the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. The court also focused on the fact that the possession of land was taken on 12.03.1981.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Land acquisition proceedings do 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 fully paid.
• ✓ The word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” requiring both non-possession and non-payment for a lapse.
• ✓ The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation has been overruled, and any reliance on it is incorrect.
• ✓ The judgment in Indore Development Authority is the correct interpretation of Section 24(2).

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court, apart from setting aside the High Court’s judgment and dismissing the original writ petition.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for the land acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, both the conditions of not taking possession and not paying compensation have to be satisfied. This judgment reinforces the position of law established in Indore Development Authority and overrules the earlier position in Pune Municipal Corporation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Sushil Kumar Gupta & Ors. clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court held that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse if possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been fully paid. This decision reinforces the precedent set in Indore Development Authority and provides clarity on the conditions required for land acquisition to lapse.