Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Metro Land Acquisition, Rejects Lapse Claim
The case of Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh & Ors. revolves around a dispute over the land acquisition for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation’s (DMRC) car maintenance depot at Kalindi Kunj. The Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s ruling that declared the acquisition lapsed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). The Supreme Court upheld the acquisition, reinforcing the principle that once possession is taken, land acquisition cannot lapse merely due to non-payment of compensation.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the acquisition of land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC). The first respondent, Jagan Singh, challenged the acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, arguing that since compensation had not been paid, the acquisition should be deemed lapsed.
Key Developments Leading to Litigation
- June 23, 1989: Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued.
- June 18, 1992: Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was made.
- May 20, 2005: The first respondent’s writ petition challenging the acquisition was dismissed.
- January 19, 2006: The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) took possession of the acquired land.
- January 1, 2014: The 2013 Act came into effect, repealing the 1894 Act.
- May 25, 2015: The first respondent filed a fresh writ petition claiming lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
- August 11, 2016: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the first respondent, holding that since compensation was not paid, the acquisition had lapsed.
- March 6, 2020: The Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. overruled previous decisions that allowed lapsing of acquisition due to non-payment of compensation.
- July 13, 2023: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling and upheld the acquisition.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appellant’s Arguments (Delhi Development Authority)
The DDA, represented by senior counsel, contended:
- The land had already been taken over and utilized for public purposes, specifically for DMRC’s metro depot.
- The High Court had relied on Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which was later overruled in Indore Development Authority.
- The delay in approaching the Supreme Court was due to procedural reasons and should not be held against the appellant.
- Once possession of land is taken, non-payment of compensation does not result in lapse of acquisition.
Respondent’s Arguments (Jagan Singh)
The first respondent countered:
- The acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as compensation was not paid.
- The DDA had waited over 1231 days to challenge the High Court’s ruling, showing clear inaction.
- The policy of the Delhi Government required fresh acquisition proceedings in cases where acquisition was deemed lapsed.
- The delay in filing the appeal should result in dismissal of the petition.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol ruled in favor of the DDA, holding that once possession is taken, land acquisition cannot lapse under the 2013 Act.
Key Observations of the Court
1. Possession Matters More Than Compensation
“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. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse.”
The Court cited the Indore Development Authority ruling, which clarified that both conditions—non-possession and non-payment—must be met for acquisition to lapse.
2. The High Court Misinterpreted Section 24(2)
“The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation, which has been expressly overruled. The law as laid down by the Constitution Bench must be followed.”
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s reliance on outdated precedent was incorrect.
3. Delay in Filing Appeal Was Justified
“Considering the importance of the public project and the utilization of land, a justice-oriented approach requires that the delay be condoned.”
The Court adopted a lenient approach given the significance of the Delhi Metro project.
4. DMRC’s Metro Depot Was a Legitimate Public Purpose
“The land has been used for the metro depot for several years. Allowing the lapse claim would disrupt public infrastructure.”
The Court emphasized that once land is used for a public project, acquisition challenges must be assessed differently.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, stating:
“The impugned judgment and order dated 11th August 2016 is set aside. The acquisition of the land remains valid.”
The Supreme Court upheld the DDA’s acquisition, rejecting the claim that it had lapsed.
Impact of the Judgment
This ruling has significant legal implications:
- Clarifies Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: Possession matters more than payment of compensation.
- Prevents infrastructure disruptions: Once land is used for public purposes, acquisition challenges cannot disrupt development.
- Overrules outdated precedents: Courts must follow the Indore Development Authority ruling.
- Sets a precedent for similar cases: Landowners cannot claim lapse of acquisition if possession is taken.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan Singh reinforces that once land is taken for public use, acquisition does not lapse merely due to unpaid compensation. This ruling provides much-needed clarity on Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and protects critical infrastructure projects from legal uncertainties.
Petitioner Name: Delhi Development Authority.Respondent Name: Jagan Singh & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Sanjay Karol.Place Of Incident: Delhi.Judgment Date: 12-07-2023.
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-jagan-singh-&-ors.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-07-2023.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 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
