Supreme Court Upholds Land Acquisition: Key Ruling on Section 24(2) of the Land Act

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in Delhi Development Authority vs. Amit Jain & Ors., setting a crucial precedent on land acquisition laws under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The judgment overturned the Delhi High Court’s ruling, which had deemed the acquisition process of land measuring 3 bighas and 18 biswas as lapsed. This ruling reinforces the principle that possession taken by the government maintains the validity of acquisition even if compensation is delayed.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under Award No. 04/2008-09, dated October 31, 2008. The land, situated in Khasra Nos. 10/20/2/1, 21/1, and 17/1, was acquired for development purposes.

The respondents, Amit Jain & Ors., approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that since compensation had not been paid, the acquisition should be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The High Court ruled in their favor.

Arguments by the Appellant (Delhi Development Authority)

The DDA contended:

“The High Court erred in declaring the acquisition lapsed merely on the ground that compensation was not paid, despite possession having been taken.”

Additional arguments included:

The government had taken physical possession of the land on January 29, 2010, except for a small built-up portion (3 biswas).
The High Court wrongly relied on Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014), which was overruled in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020).
Section 24(2) requires both possession not to have been taken and compensation not to have been paid for acquisition to lapse.
The government’s failure to physically hand over compensation does not invalidate acquisition if the amount is deposited in treasury accounts.

Arguments by the Respondents (Amit Jain & Ors.)

The respondents argued:

“If compensation is not paid directly to the landowners, the acquisition should be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.”

Additional claims included:

The acquisition process remained incomplete as no compensation was paid.
Physical possession was taken only through paperwork, without actual displacement of the landowners.
Under the 2013 Act, landowners are entitled to fresh compensation if acquisition lapses.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020), which held:

“The deemed lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2) occurs only when both possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid.”

Key findings of the Court:

Possession of land was taken in 2010, meaning the acquisition remained valid.
The non-payment of compensation does not automatically lead to lapse if possession has been taken.
The deposit of compensation in a government treasury is legally sufficient and does not require direct disbursal to landowners.

The Court ruled that the High Court failed to consider binding precedents on land acquisition law.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The Delhi High Court’s decision was quashed.
The land acquisition did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
The appeal by the DDA was allowed, restoring the validity of the acquisition.
The respondents were not entitled to claim fresh compensation.

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling clarifies key aspects of land acquisition law:

Possession Matters: If possession is taken, acquisition remains valid even if compensation is delayed.
Binding Precedents Must Be Followed: The High Court should have applied Indore Development Authority (2020).
Prevention of Misuse of Section 24(2): The ruling prevents landowners from using technical loopholes to invalidate government projects.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Delhi Development Authority vs. Amit Jain & Ors. sets a significant precedent in land acquisition disputes. By overturning the High Court’s ruling, the judgment ensures that technical loopholes are not exploited to delay government projects and that landowners do not misuse the law to claim undue compensation.

Petitioner Name: Delhi Development Authority.
Respondent Name: Amit Jain & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 24-02-2023.

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-amit-jain-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-24-02-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category