Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition, Overrules High Court: Department of Land and Building vs. Anjeet Singh (2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 if either possession is not taken or compensation is not paid.

CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition

Case Name: The Secretary, The Department of Land and Building and Ors. vs. Anjeet Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Anr.

Judgment Date: 24 November 2022

Date of the Judgment: 24 November 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8196 of 2022 (@ Diary No. 24980 of 2022)
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and M.M. Sundresh, J.
Can land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed if the government fails to both take possession of the land and pay 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 case involved a dispute over land acquisition where the High Court had ruled in favor of the landowners, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision.
The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1986 in village Lado Sarai, New Delhi. The land in question was Khasra No. 156, measuring 2 bighas and 4 biswas. The award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was declared on September 14, 1986. According to the appellants, the Department of Land and Building and the Land Acquisition Collector, possession of the land was taken on September 22, 1986.

The High Court of Delhi, relying on its earlier decision in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., had ruled that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act because compensation had not been tendered to the recorded owner. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s decision in Jagjeet Singh heavily relied on a previous Supreme Court decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., which has since been overruled.

The respondents, the legal heirs of Anjeet Singh, argued that since the appeal against the Jagjeet Singh decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court, the High Court’s decision should not be overturned. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the dismissal of the appeal in Jagjeet Singh occurred before the law was settled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi, in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., had declared that the acquisition of land with respect to Khasra No. 156 had lapsed, as compensation was not tendered to the recorded owner. This decision was based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.. The High Court then applied this precedent to the present case, Writ Petition (C) No. 203 of 2015, and ruled in favor of the landowners.

However, the Supreme Court noted that its decision in Pune Municipal Corporation had been specifically overruled by a Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors.. The Supreme Court also clarified that although the appeal against the Jagjeet Singh decision was dismissed, it was before the law was settled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal in Jagjeet Singh did not have any bearing on the present case.

Legal Framework

The core 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 if certain conditions are not met. The section states:

“24. (2) 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: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

The Supreme Court, in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., clarified that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that for acquisition proceedings to lapse, both conditions must be met: the possession of the land must not have been taken, and compensation must not have been paid. If either of these conditions is satisfied, the acquisition does not lapse.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments (Department of Land and Building and Land Acquisition Collector):

• The appellants argued that the possession of the land in question was taken on September 22, 1986.
• They contended that the High Court’s decision was based on the overruled judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors..
• The appellants relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., which clarified that both conditions under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act must be met for the acquisition to lapse.
• They argued that the compensation was not paid due to an ownership dispute between the co-owners, not due to any inaction on their part.

Respondents’ Arguments (Legal heirs of Anjeet Singh):

• The respondents argued that the High Court’s decision should not be interfered with, as the Civil Appeal against the Jagjeet Singh decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
• They contended that since the compensation was not paid, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• They admitted that the compensation was not paid due to a dispute among the claimants.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively used the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. to argue that the High Court’s decision was based on an overruled judgment and that both conditions of Section 24(2) must be met for the acquisition to lapse.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the acquisition of 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.

The sub-issue that the Court dealt with was whether the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and”.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court **overruled** the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183]* as it was based on an incorrect interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• The Supreme Court **relied upon** the Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129]* which clarified that both conditions under Section 24(2) must be met for the acquisition to lapse.
• The Supreme Court **distinguished** the decision in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.* as it was passed before the law was settled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as clarified by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors. The Court emphasized that both conditions—non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation—must be satisfied for the acquisition to lapse. The fact that possession was taken, even if compensation was not paid due to a dispute, was sufficient to prevent the acquisition from lapsing.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, emphasizing the importance of the Constitution Bench’s decision in Indore Development Authority. The factual aspect of the possession being taken was also a key factor.

The Court considered the argument that compensation was not paid, but it was not considered sufficient to cause a lapse in the acquisition proceedings since possession was taken. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) must be read as “and” or “nor,” meaning both conditions must be met for the acquisition to lapse.

The Supreme Court stated:

“As observed and held by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra) for the purpose of deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both the conditions namely the possession of land has not been taken over and the compensation not paid are required to be satisfied.”

“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 case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• For 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 non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation must be met.
• The word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and.”
• If possession of the land has been taken, the acquisition does not lapse even if compensation has not been paid.
• Ownership disputes among claimants do not invalidate the acquisition if possession has been taken.
• The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. is overruled and no longer good law.

The judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, providing certainty to land acquisition proceedings. It emphasizes that the government’s act of taking possession is a crucial step that prevents the lapse of acquisition, even if compensation is not paid due to disputes or other reasons.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s judgment and order in Writ Petition (C) No. 203 of 2015, which had declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for 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 conditions of non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation must be satisfied. This decision reinforces the interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Ors., and overrules the earlier position of law as interpreted in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in The Secretary, The Department of Land and Building and Ors. vs. Anjeet Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Anr. clarifies that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession of the land has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “nor” or “and,” requiring both conditions to be met for the acquisition to lapse. This decision provides clarity and certainty to land acquisition proceedings, ensuring that acquisitions are not easily invalidated due to technicalities.

Category:

• Land Acquisition
  • Section 24(2), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894

FAQ

Q: What does Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 say?

A: Section 24(2) states that if land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and an award was made five years or more before the new Act came into force, the proceedings would lapse if either possession was not taken or compensation was not paid.

Q: What did the Supreme Court clarify about Section 24(2)?

A: The Supreme Court 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 conditions must be met: possession must not have been taken, and compensation must not have been paid. If either condition is satisfied, the acquisition does not lapse.

Q: What happens if the government has taken possession of the land but has not paid compensation?

A: According to the Supreme Court, if the government has taken possession of the land, the acquisition does not lapse even if compensation has not been paid. This is because both conditions under Section 24(2) must be met for the acquisition to lapse.

Q: What if there is a dispute between landowners regarding compensation?

A: If there is a dispute between landowners regarding compensation, and the government has taken possession of the land, the acquisition does not lapse. The dispute does not invalidate the acquisition.

Q: What was the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?

A: The Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It ensures that land acquisitions are not easily invalidated due to technicalities and provides certainty to land acquisition proceedings.