Supreme Court Rules on Compensation for Land Acquisition by Delhi Metro

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on the case of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. Tarun Pal Singh & Ors., addressing a dispute over land acquisition compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The case raised critical questions about whether Section 24(1)(b) should be governed by the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether landowners were entitled to enhanced compensation under the 2013 Act.

Background of the Case

The case pertains to land acquired for the Delhi Metro Rail project, specifically for the construction of Chattarpur Metro Station and Electrical Relay Sub-Station to cater to the metro line from Mehrauli to Gurgaon. The land acquisition process was initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a notification issued on June 4, 2009, invoking Sections 4 and 17(1) & (4) of the 1894 Act.

Key events in the case include:

• On June 16, 2009, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) deposited 80% of the land compensation amounting to Rs. 3.28 crores.
• Possession of the land was taken by the DMRC on September 16, 2009.
• An award was passed on September 14, 2011, determining the final compensation.
• On November 3, 2011, DMRC deposited the balance compensation amount of Rs. 60.81 crores.
• Landowners filed a writ petition seeking enhanced compensation under the 2013 Act.

Arguments of the Petitioners (Landowners)

• The landowners argued that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, their land acquisition should be considered lapsed since compensation was not paid directly to them.
• They claimed that the proviso to Section 24(2) entitled them to compensation under the 2013 Act, as the majority of landowners had not received compensation.
• They relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. Sukhbir Singh & Ors., which held that Section 24(2) serves as an exception to Section 24(1)(b).

Arguments of the Respondents (Delhi Metro Rail Corporation)

• DMRC argued that the award was passed within five years before the commencement of the 2013 Act, making Section 24(1)(b) applicable.
• They contended that since compensation was deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector, the acquisition did not lapse.
• The DMRC further asserted that proviso to Section 24(2) should not be read as part of Section 24(1)(b), as it only applies when an award is five years or more old.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

1. Proviso to Section 24(2) is Not Part of Section 24(1)(b)

The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 24(2) must be read as part of Section 24(2) itself and not as part of Section 24(1)(b). The Court stated:

“Reading the proviso to Section 24(2) as part of Section 24(1)(b) would create inconsistency. The legislative intent is clear that the proviso is applicable only when an award is five years or more before the commencement of the 2013 Act.”

2. Compensation Deposited Before 2013 Act Cannot Entitle Landowners to Enhanced Compensation

The Court ruled that since DMRC had already deposited the compensation amount, the land acquisition proceedings did not lapse. It clarified:

“Section 24(2) only applies where compensation has not been paid or possession has not been taken. In this case, possession was taken and compensation was deposited before 2013.”

3. Reliance on Sukhbir Singh Case is Misplaced

The landowners cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Delhi Development Authority vs. Sukhbir Singh, arguing that compensation should be enhanced under the 2013 Act. However, the Court distinguished the present case, stating:

“Sukhbir Singh dealt with an award made five years before the 2013 Act, whereas in the present case, the award was made within five years.”

4. Section 24(1)(b) and Section 24(2) Operate in Different Domains

The Court clarified the legislative framework:

• Section 24(1)(b) allows proceedings under the 1894 Act to continue if an award has already been passed.
• Section 24(2) applies if compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken.
• The proviso to Section 24(2) extends enhanced compensation to landowners if the majority have not been compensated.

5. No Lapse of Acquisition

The Supreme Court rejected the landowners’ argument that the acquisition had lapsed and ruled:

“Since compensation was deposited before the enactment of the 2013 Act, the land acquisition remains valid under Section 24(1)(b).”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the DMRC and ruled that:

• The acquisition does not lapse.
• The landowners are not entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act.
• The compensation already determined under the 1894 Act remains valid.

Conclusion

This ruling clarifies the application of Section 24 of the 2013 Act in land acquisition cases, emphasizing that compensation deposited before the enactment of the new law does not entitle landowners to enhanced compensation. The judgment upholds the validity of land acquisitions completed under the 1894 Act and prevents unnecessary disruptions in infrastructure projects like the Delhi Metro.

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

Download Judgment: Delhi Metro Rail Cor vs Tarun Pal Singh & Or Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-11-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 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