Supreme Court Quashes High Court Order on Land Acquisition in Delhi

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Dhannu & Anr., ruled on the validity of land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s ruling that had declared the acquisition process as lapsed.

Background of the Case

The Government of NCT of Delhi had acquired land for public purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents, Dhannu & Anr., challenged the acquisition in the Delhi High Court, arguing that since compensation had not been paid and possession had not been taken, the acquisition should be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the landowners, declaring the acquisition void. The Government of NCT of Delhi, dissatisfied with this ruling, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Key Legal Issues

The Supreme Court considered the following key questions:

Whether the land acquisition lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation.
Whether possession of the land had been taken by the government.
Whether the Delhi High Court erred in applying overruled precedents.

Arguments by the Appellant (Government of NCT of Delhi)

The government contended:

“The High Court wrongly applied the law by declaring the acquisition lapsed, ignoring the fact that possession had been taken.”

Key arguments:

The land in question belonged to the Gram Sabha, and the original writ petitioner had no legal standing to challenge the acquisition.
Possession of the land was taken before the enactment of the 2013 Act.
The High Court relied on Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014), which had been overruled by the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020).
According to the Indore Development Authority (2020) ruling, land acquisition does not lapse if possession has been taken or if compensation has been deposited in the treasury.

Arguments by the Respondents (Dhannu & Anr.)

The respondents argued:

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

Additional claims:

Since compensation was not received, the acquisition should be considered void.
The authorities failed to discharge their duty of compensating landowners.
The petitioners should be entitled to fresh compensation under the 2013 Act.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court referred to the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020), which clarified:

“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:

The land in question belonged to the Gram Sabha, and the respondents had no legal standing to claim compensation.
Possession of the land had already been taken.
Non-payment of compensation does not automatically lead to lapse if possession has been taken.
The High Court’s reliance on an overruled precedent was legally incorrect.

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 Government of NCT of Delhi was allowed, restoring the validity of the acquisition.
The respondents were not entitled to claim compensation or challenge the acquisition.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for land acquisition cases:

Land Ownership Determines Standing: The judgment clarifies that only legally recognized landowners can challenge an acquisition.
Possession is Key: If possession has been taken, acquisition remains valid even if compensation is delayed.
Precedents Must Be Followed: The High Court should have applied Indore Development Authority (2020) instead of relying on an overruled decision.
Prevention of Unjustified Challenges: The ruling prevents landowners from using legal loopholes to invalidate acquisitions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. vs. Dhannu & Anr. sets a crucial precedent in land acquisition disputes. By overturning the High Court’s ruling, the judgment ensures that government projects are not stalled due to technical lapses and that rightful ownership is a necessary condition for challenging acquisitions.

Petitioner Name: Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors..
Respondent Name: Dhannu & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 16-02-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: government-of-nct-of-vs-dhannu-&-anr.-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-16-02-2023.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 Judgment by Sanjay Karol
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