Land Acquisition Disputes: Supreme Court Rejects Lapse of Acquisition Under 2013 Act
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Land Acquisition Collector (South) vs. Hari Chand & Anr., addressed the issue of 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 (hereinafter referred to as the 2013 Act). The Court ruled that land acquisition does not lapse merely due to non-payment of compensation if possession has already been taken. This decision is significant for landowners and government authorities dealing with acquisition matters.
The ruling set aside the Delhi High Court’s decision, which had declared the acquisition of the land in question as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Supreme Court relied on its Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors., clarifying the correct interpretation of Section 24(2).
Background of the Case
The case involved land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector, South Delhi, had taken possession of the land in 1987, but the compensation was not disbursed. In 2016, the landowners filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, arguing that their land acquisition should be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
The High Court, relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., held that since compensation had not been paid, the acquisition had lapsed. The Land Acquisition Collector challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
1. Whether land acquisition proceedings lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act if compensation is not paid but possession has been taken.
2. Whether the ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation was applicable or if it had been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority.
3. Whether the government can continue with land acquisition if compensation is deposited but not directly paid to the landowner.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner (Land Acquisition Collector) Arguments
- The possession of the land was taken on July 14, 1987, which meant the acquisition process had already been completed under the 1894 Act.
- The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority had overruled Pune Municipal Corporation and clarified that non-payment of compensation does not automatically lead to lapse.
- Under the law, once possession is taken, the land vests with the government, and there is no provision for ‘lapsing’ due to delays in compensation.
Respondents (Landowners) Arguments
- Since compensation had not been paid, the acquisition should be deemed lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- The government cannot deprive the landowners of both their land and compensation.
- The High Court’s ruling in line with Pune Municipal Corporation was correct, and the Supreme Court should uphold it.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court, led by Justices M.R. Shah and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, made the following key observations:
- The Indore Development Authority ruling clarified that land acquisition does not lapse if possession is taken, even if compensation is unpaid.
- The term ‘paid’ in Section 24(2) does not require direct payment to the landowner; depositing compensation in a treasury or court is sufficient.
- The High Court’s reliance on Pune Municipal Corporation was incorrect as it had been overruled.
The Court quoted from Indore Development Authority:
“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.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled as follows:
- The High Court’s decision was quashed and set aside.
- The acquisition of land did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- The possession of land taken by the government remains valid.
Implications of the Judgment
The ruling has significant implications for land acquisition cases:
- Clarification on Section 24(2): The judgment reiterates that land acquisition does not lapse merely due to non-payment of compensation.
- Protection of Government Projects: Ensures that public infrastructure projects are not hindered by disputes over compensation.
- Precedent for Future Cases: The ruling will guide courts in similar cases involving delayed compensation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Land Acquisition Collector (South) vs. Hari Chand & Anr. strengthens the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. It ensures that acquisition proceedings do not lapse solely due to compensation delays if possession has already been taken. This judgment serves as a crucial precedent for landowners, government authorities, and courts handling land acquisition disputes.
Petitioner Name: Land Acquisition Collector (South).Respondent Name: Hari Chand & Anr..Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah.Place Of Incident: South Delhi, India.Judgment Date: 19-04-2023.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: land-acquisition-col-vs-hari-chand-&-anr.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-19-04-2023.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by Ahsanuddin Amanullah
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 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
