Land Acquisition Lapses Under Section 24(2): Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Landowners
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Malik Industry & Anr. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., addressing the impact of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). The judgment reinforced the rights of landowners by ruling that land acquisition proceedings lapse if compensation has not been paid to the landowners, even if the amount was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector.
Background of the Case
The case involved a dispute over land acquisition in Haryana. The appellants, Malik Industry and others, had approached the Supreme Court with grievances regarding the acquisition of their land. They sought a declaration that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act since the compensation had not been paid to them.
During the pendency of the appeal, the appellants filed an interlocutory application citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., which held that if compensation is not paid to the landowners but merely deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2).
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: States that if compensation for land acquisition initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, has not been paid to the landowners and possession has not been taken, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed.
- Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act: Allows landowners to claim higher compensation if land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the 1894 Act but not completed before the commencement of the 2013 Act.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants’ (Malik Industry) Arguments
- The acquisition proceedings had lapsed because compensation was not paid to them directly.
- The amount was only deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector, which does not constitute valid payment under Section 24(2).
- They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation, which established that non-payment of compensation leads to automatic lapse of acquisition.
Respondents’ (State of Haryana) Arguments
- The state contended that the compensation had been deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector and, therefore, the acquisition was valid.
- The government argued that possession had already been taken, which should prevent the acquisition from lapsing.
- The state also claimed that landowners had not actively claimed their compensation, which should not result in the nullification of the acquisition.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A bench comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and Amitava Roy considered the arguments and ruled in favor of the appellants.
On the Payment of Compensation:
“It is admitted that in the case of the appellants, the compensation amount has not been paid to them; it was only deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector.”
On the Applicability of Pune Municipal Corporation Judgment:
“The judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors., as it stands today, squarely applies to these appeals.”
On the Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings:
“Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The land acquisition proceedings initiated against the appellants stand lapsed.”
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled that:
- The acquisition of land in favor of the State of Haryana had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation.
- The state was granted the opportunity to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act within six months.
- Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
- No costs were awarded.
Implications of the Judgment
For Landowners
- The ruling strengthens the rights of landowners by ensuring they receive direct compensation.
- Depositing money with the Land Acquisition Collector is not considered valid payment.
- Landowners can use this ruling to challenge acquisitions where compensation has not been received.
For State Governments
- The judgment mandates that governments must pay compensation directly to landowners to avoid lapsing of acquisitions.
- States must review pending land acquisition cases to ensure compliance with Section 24(2).
- Failure to pay compensation can result in land acquisitions being declared void.
For Real Estate and Infrastructure Projects
- Projects relying on old land acquisitions must verify that compensation was paid correctly.
- Developers should ensure that government-acquired land does not fall under lapsing provisions of the 2013 Act.
- Any acquisition that lapses may require fresh proceedings, delaying infrastructure projects.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed that non-payment of compensation results in the lapse of land acquisition under Section 24(2).
- Landowners are entitled to direct compensation; depositing funds with the Collector does not suffice.
- State governments must ensure compliance with the 2013 Act to avoid legal challenges.
- The ruling provides clarity on land acquisition laws, benefiting landowners and ensuring fair compensation.
This judgment serves as a landmark ruling in land acquisition law, ensuring that property owners receive due compensation and protecting their rights under the 2013 Act.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Malik Industry & Anr vs State of Haryana & O Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 12-12-2017.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod 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 Kurian Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Amitava Roy
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2017
See all petitions in 2017 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
