Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition, Overruling High Court: Govt of NCT of Delhi vs. Ram Prakash Sehrawat (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2022

Citation: [Not Provided in Source]

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

Can land acquisition be deemed to have lapsed if the government has taken possession of the land, but has not paid compensation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning land acquisition in Delhi. The Court’s decision clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and its impact on pending land acquisition proceedings. This judgment is crucial for understanding the rights of landowners and the obligations of the state in land acquisition matters.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, delivered the judgment. The judgment was authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The initial notification for acquisition was issued on 23 January 1965, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Subsequently, an award was declared, and a Section 12(2) notice was issued on 19 September 1986. According to the government, possession of the land was taken and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 22 September 1986.

Approximately 29 years later, the original landowners, Ram Prakash Sehrawat and others, filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi. They argued that the acquisition should be considered lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, because compensation had not been paid. The High Court ruled in their favor, leading to the government’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

The government contended that possession had indeed been taken in 1986. The original landowners, however, claimed that they were still in possession, with an illegal residential colony on the land, for which regularization proceedings were underway. They also had a writ petition pending in the High Court for the same.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Delhi, in its judgment, relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183], to declare that the acquisition had lapsed. The High Court held that since compensation had not been paid to the recorded owners, the acquisition was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

The Government of NCT of Delhi then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had acknowledged the government’s claim that possession was taken in 1986, but did not further investigate this fact. The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court had failed to consider the fact that the Supreme Court had overruled the Pune Municipal Corporation 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 initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 states:

“(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.”

The key issue here is the interpretation of the word “or” in the phrase “possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid”. The Supreme Court has previously clarified that “or” should be read as “nor” or “and”. This means that for a land acquisition to lapse under Section 24(2), both possession must not have been taken AND compensation must not have been paid.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:

• Government of NCT of Delhi:
  • The government argued that possession of the land was taken on 22 September 1986, and handed over to the DDA.
  • They submitted that the High Court erred in relying on the overruled judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation.
  • They emphasized that the landowners’ claim of continued possession was based on an illegal residential colony, which was subject to separate regularization proceedings.
• Ram Prakash Sehrawat and Ors. (Landowners):
  • The landowners argued that they were still in possession of the land.
  • They highlighted the existence of an illegal residential colony on the land, for which regularization proceedings were ongoing.
  • They contended that since compensation had not been paid, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

The Supreme Court focused on the legal interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and the factual position regarding possession, as claimed by the government.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue before the Court was:

• 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, given that possession was claimed to have been taken by the Government, but compensation was not paid to the original landowners.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129] – Supreme Court of India
  
  The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in this case overruled the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation. The Court clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, stating that the word “or” must be read as “nor” or “and.”
• Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183] – Supreme Court of India
  
  This case was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority. The High Court had relied on this case to declare that the acquisition had lapsed.
• Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
  
  This section of the Act deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. The Court interpreted this section to mean that both non-payment of compensation AND non-taking of possession are required for a lapse.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129]*: The Supreme Court followed this authority, which overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2).

✓ Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183]*: The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on this authority, as it had been overruled by Indore Development Authority.

✓ Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: The Supreme Court interpreted this provision to mean that both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession are required for a lapse of acquisition proceedings.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The legal interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as clarified by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129]. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in the section must be read as “nor” or “and,” requiring both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession for a lapse of acquisition.
• The fact that the High Court had relied on the overruled judgment of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183]. The Supreme Court noted that this reliance was incorrect and unsustainable.
• The government’s claim that possession of the land was taken on 22 September 1986. The Court accepted this claim, noting that it was stated in the government’s counter affidavit before the High Court.
• The fact that the landowners’ claim of continued possession was based on an illegal residential colony, which was subject to separate regularization proceedings. The Court viewed this as an unlawful encroachment on government land.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of Section 24(2) and the precedent set in the Indore Development Authority case. The Court rejected the landowners’ arguments, emphasizing that their claim was based on unlawful possession and that the High Court’s decision was based on an overruled judgment.

The Supreme Court stated, “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 Court further noted, “In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.”

The Court also clarified, “Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).”

Key Takeaways

• Land acquisition proceedings do not automatically lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if possession of the land has been taken by the government, even if compensation has not been paid.
• The word “or” in Section 24(2) must be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession are required for a lapse.
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129] is the binding precedent on the interpretation of Section 24(2).
• High Courts must not rely on overruled judgments, such as Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183].
• Landowners cannot claim a lapse of acquisition if the government has taken possession, even if they continue to occupy the land illegally.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, which had declared that the acquisition with respect to the land in question had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The appeal was allowed, and the land acquisition was upheld.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on any specific amendments in the judgment.

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 possession must not have been taken AND compensation must not have been paid. This clarifies the interpretation of the word “or” in the provision, which should be read as “nor” or “and.”

This judgment reinforces the position of law established in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129], which overruled the earlier interpretation in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183]. It emphasizes that once possession is taken by the government, the land vests in the State, and there is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Govt of NCT of Delhi vs. Ram Prakash Sehrawat 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 the government has taken possession of the land, even if compensation has not been paid. This decision reinforces the precedent set in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. [(2020) 8 SCC 129] and overrules the High Court’s reliance on the earlier judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors. [(2014) 3 SCC 183]. The Supreme Court emphasized that both non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession are required for a lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2).