Land Acquisition | Once Proceedings Under 1894 Act Are Held To Be Valid, Claimant Can't Seek Compensation Under 2013 Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that once it is found that the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 are valid, then the claimant is not entitled to seek compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol was deciding an appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority challenging a direction of the Delhi High Court to award compensation to the claimant as per the 2013 Act.BACKGROUND OF THE CASEIn 1989, the respondent’s land was acquired by issuing a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, of 1894. An award was passed under section 11 in 1992. He challenged the acquisition proceedings but it was dismissed in 2005. In 2006, the appellant took over the possession of the land.In 2014, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force. In 2015, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court contending that as per section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the acquisition can be considered to have lapsed.Legal IssueSection 24 of the Act, 2013 says that “where an award under section 11 has been made 5 years before this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid then the proceedings would lapse.”The question is when can we say that proceedings have lapsed- Whether the state needs to take possession and pay compensation both to save the proceedings under the 1894 Act or fulfilling either one of them would suffice?The High Court held that physical possession has been taken but compensation has not been paid. Both conditions need to be fulfilled. Therefore, section 24(2) will apply and the proceedings would lapse. It relied upon Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand(2014) and directed the appellant to pay compensation as per the 2013 Act.SUPREME COURT’S VERDICTIf the state has either paid compensation or taken possession then proceedings under 1894 would continue to be validThe Supreme Court noted that the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation, which was followed by the Delhi High Court, was expressly overruled by Constitutional Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal(2020). It interpreted section 24(2) and held that “in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.” Therefore, if the state fulfills either of those 2 conditions- either taking possession/payment of compensation then the proceedings would not lapse.The court held that in the present case since possession was taken over in 2006, therefore section 24(2) won’t apply. Therefore, the proceedings under the 1894 Act cannot be held to be lapsed. The High Court had directed that compensation be paid to the respondent in terms of 2013 Act since the land was already put to public use. The Supreme Court held this direction to be unsustainable. "Once it is held that the acquisition under the 1894 Act continues to be valid, the first respondent is disentitled to claim compensation payable in terms of the 2013 Act which was not applicable to the acquisition. However, the appellant is entitled to receive compensation already determined under the award made under the 1894 Act"Land Used for public purposes over the years: Can condone the delayThe court noted that in this case, SLP was filed by the appellant 2 years after the decision in Indore Development Authority(2020). The acquired land was already put to use for important public purposes of the metro depot. Therefore, the court held that a liberal and justice-oriented approach can be adopted to condone the delay."The use of the land for public purposes for the last several years is certainly a relevant factor for adopting a liberal approach while considering the prayer for condoning the delay", it observed.Also from the judgment - Pavement Built On Acquired Land Encroached By Vendors; Supreme Court Asks DDA To Take ActionCase title: Delhi Development Authority v. Jagan SinghCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 526; 2023 INSC 620Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Land Acquisition | Once Proceedings Under 1894 Act Are Held To Be Valid, Claimant Can't Seek Compensation Under 2013 Act : Supreme Court

Suraj Kumar

Tags