Land Acquisition Case: Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Lapse Ruling

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) vs. Shyamo and Others, addressing whether land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The case revolved around whether the non-payment of compensation or failure to take possession led to the acquisition lapsing.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated when landowners, including Shyamo, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, arguing that their land acquisition had lapsed due to the authorities’ failure to compensate them. The High Court ruled in their favor, declaring the acquisition void under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-rules-on-land-acquisition-dda-vs-asha-prakash-case/

The Delhi Development Authority (DDA), dissatisfied with this ruling, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the landowners’ claims were invalid because possession had been taken, and compensation was deposited.

Arguments by the Appellant (DDA)

• The DDA contended that possession of the land was legally taken, as documented by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC).
• They relied on the ruling in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020), which clarified that land acquisition does not lapse if either possession has been taken or compensation has been deposited.
• The High Court’s reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) was erroneous because that decision had been expressly overruled.

Arguments by the Respondents (Landowners)

• The landowners argued that they had never received compensation directly and that merely depositing it in court did not satisfy the legal requirement.
• They contended that they continued to possess and use the land, proving that possession was never taken.
• They relied on previous Delhi High Court rulings that held non-payment of compensation led to a lapse in land acquisition.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• “The word ‘or’ in Section 24(2) must be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’, meaning that lapse occurs only if neither possession has been taken nor compensation has been paid.”
• “Since possession was taken, and compensation was deposited in the Reference Court, there is no basis for claiming lapse of acquisition.”
• “The judgment in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020) is binding and must be followed.”

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and upheld the validity of the land acquisition proceedings.
• The Court ruled that depositing compensation in the Reference Court fulfills the legal requirement under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• The landowners’ plea for lapse of acquisition was rejected.

Legal Precedents Considered

• Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020): Established that both possession and compensation must be lacking for acquisition proceedings to lapse.
• Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014): Previously held that compensation deposited in court does not amount to payment but was later overruled.
• Shiv Kumar vs. Union of India (2019): Confirmed that acquisition does not lapse if possession is taken or compensation is deposited.

Implications of the Judgment

• The ruling reinforces that land acquisition cannot be invalidated solely on non-payment of compensation if it has been deposited in court.
• It prevents misuse of Section 24(2) by landowners seeking to invalidate old acquisitions.
• The decision aligns future rulings with the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority.
• Government agencies can now rely on possession records and compensation deposits to defend against lapse claims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling upholds the principle that land acquisition proceedings do not lapse merely due to non-payment of compensation if possession has been taken. The judgment strengthens legal certainty in land acquisition matters and prevents unwarranted invalidations of acquisitions based on technicalities. The decision will have a significant impact on similar land acquisition disputes across India.

Petitioner Name: Delhi Development Authority.
Respondent Name: Shyamo and Others.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 20-01-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: delhi-development-au-vs-shyamo-and-others-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-20-01-2023.pdf