Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition, Rejects Lapsed Claims Under 2013 Act

Date of the Judgment: 26 September 2022

Citation: Not Available

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., Krishna Murari, J.

Can land acquisition proceedings be deemed to have lapsed if compensation hasn’t been paid or possession hasn’t been taken? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court’s decision has significant implications for land acquisition cases across the country. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari.

Case Background

The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from multiple writ petitions filed in the High Court of Delhi. These petitions challenged land acquisitions, claiming that the proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act). The petitioners argued that either possession of the land had not been taken or compensation had not been paid, thus triggering the lapse provision under the 2013 Act. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Government of NCT of Delhi were the appellants, contesting the High Court’s decision to allow the writ petitions. The respondents were the original writ petitioners, landowners whose land was subject to acquisition.

Timeline

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 initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if certain conditions are not met. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act 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 previously interpreted this section in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. The key points from that judgment, as reiterated in this case, are:

• ✓ The word “or” in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation should be read as “nor” or “and”. This means that for a lapse to occur, both possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid.
• ✓ If possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid, or vice versa, the acquisition does not lapse.
• ✓ The term “paid” does not include a deposit of compensation in court.
• ✓ If compensation has been tendered under Section 31(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the obligation to pay is complete, and the acquisition does not lapse.
• ✓ Once possession has been taken under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land vests in the State, and there is no divesting under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Arguments

The arguments presented by the parties revolved around the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and its application to the facts of the cases. The appellants, the Delhi Development Authority and the Government of NCT of Delhi, argued that the High Court had erred in applying Section 24(2) and that the land acquisition proceedings had not lapsed. The respondents, the original writ petitioners, contended that the conditions for a lapse under Section 24(2) were met.

The Appellants argued that:

• ✓The High Court’s judgments were contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129.
• ✓ The interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 required that both possession not be taken and compensation not be paid for the acquisition to lapse.
• ✓ That the conditions for lapse under Section 24(2) were not met in the present cases.

The Respondents argued that:

• ✓ Either possession had not been taken or compensation had not been paid, thus triggering the lapse provision under the 2013 Act.
• ✓ The High Court had correctly applied Section 24(2) to the facts of their cases.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was whether the High Court had correctly interpreted and applied Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. The sub-issue was whether the conditions for lapse under Section 24(2) were met in the present cases.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court primarily relied on its previous judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. This case provided a detailed interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court also referred to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Section 31(1) and Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the High Court. The Court held that the High Court had erred in its interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, emphasizing that the word “or” in Section 24(2) must be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that for a lapse to occur, both possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid. The court found that the conditions for lapse were not met in the present cases.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129*: The Supreme Court followed this judgment, reiterating its interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) must be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for a lapse to occur.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain consistency with its previous ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal principles and interpretations. The following points weighed in the mind of the court:

• ✓ The interpretation of Section 24(2) as laid down in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129.
• ✓ The need for a consistent interpretation of the law.
• ✓ The fact that the conditions for lapse under Section 24(2) were not met in the present cases.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as clarified in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129. The Court emphasized that the word “or” in Section 24(2) must be read as “nor” or “and,” meaning that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for a lapse to occur. The Court rejected any alternative interpretations that would have led to a different conclusion. The final decision was reached by applying this interpretation to the facts of the cases, which showed that the conditions for lapse were not met.

The court quoted from the judgment:

“The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court are just contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra).”

“In view of the above, the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court are unsustainable and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Land acquisition proceedings will not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid.
• ✓ The word “or” in Section 24(2) must be read as “nor” or “and,” requiring both non-possession and non-payment for a lapse.
• ✓ The Supreme Court’s judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, continues to be the guiding principle in interpreting Section 24(2).
• ✓ Landowners cannot claim a lapse of acquisition if compensation has been tendered, even if not accepted.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgments of the High Court.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment being discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, must be read as “nor” or “and.” This means that for a lapse of land acquisition proceedings to occur, both possession must not have been taken and compensation must not have been paid. This judgment reinforces the position of law established in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 and does not change the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, emphasizing that both non-possession and non-payment of compensation are required for a lapse of land acquisition proceedings. The court upheld its previous ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, ensuring consistency in the application of the law. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court’s judgments were set aside.