Land Acquisition and Compensation: Supreme Court Upholds Landowners’ Rights

The Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4544 of 2016 and related appeals addressed the issue of whether land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The case involved the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (Petitioner) and Reena Suri & Others (Respondents). The DDA challenged the Delhi High Court’s decision, which held that land acquisitions had lapsed due to non-compliance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.

The appeals stemmed from the fact that in many cases, even after awards were passed under the 1894 Act, physical possession was not taken, and compensation was not paid to the landowners before the 2013 Act came into force on January 1, 2014.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The DDA contended that:

• Once an award was passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land automatically vested with the government.
• Possession was not mandatory for the completion of the acquisition process.
• Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act should not be applied retrospectively to acquisitions completed under the 1894 Act.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents argued that:

• As per Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act lapse if possession was not taken or compensation was not paid before January 1, 2014.
• In the present case, the government had failed to take possession of the land within the stipulated timeframe.
• The government must now start fresh proceedings under the 2013 Act if it still intends to acquire the land.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed Section 24 of the 2013 Act, which states:

“Where an award under the said Section 11 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.”

The Court rejected the DDA’s contention that land automatically vested with the government upon passing an award. Instead, the Court clarified:

“Passing of the award by itself will not enable the appellant to take a contention that the land has automatically vested with the Government on passing of the award.”

The Court held that the failure to take possession or pay compensation before January 1, 2014, led to the lapse of the acquisition proceedings. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the High Court’s ruling.

Key Takeaways

• Land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act lapse if possession is not taken or compensation is not paid before January 1, 2014.
• Merely passing an award does not result in automatic vesting of land with the government.
• The government must initiate fresh proceedings under the 2013 Act if it seeks to reacquire the land.

This judgment strengthens the rights of landowners, ensuring that delayed land acquisitions do not unfairly dispossess individuals without compensation.

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 Reena Suri & Others Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-04-2016-1741854745340.pdf