Land Acquisition | After Taking Possession, Land Vests With State; Any Person Retaining Possession After That Is A Trespasser : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the Delhi High Court which held that since the compensation was not paid to the landowners, the acquisition of the land in question was lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. While relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129, the division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed:“It is opined therein that after the acquisition of land and passing of award, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The vesting of land with the State is with possession. Any person retaining the possession thereafter has to be treated trespasser. When large chunk of land is acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person or police force to retain the possession and start cultivating on the land till it is utilized. The Government is also not supposed to start residing or physically occupying the same once process of the acquisition is complete.”Brief FactsVide notification dated June 23, 1989 issued under Section 4 (Publication of preliminary notification and powers of officers there upon) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act of 1894) a large chunk of the land including the land in question was sought to be acquired for planned development of Delhi. The said acquisition was followed by the notification issued under Section 6 (Declaration that land is required for a public purpose) of the Act of 1894 dated June 6, 1990 and the award was announced on June 19, 1992. The land owners (present respondents) filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court invoking Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act) claiming that the acquisition in question had lapsed as neither possession was taken nor the compensation was paid for the said acquisition. The present appellants submitted before the High Court that the possession of the land was taken on December 6, 2012 and handed over to the DDA. It was further submitted that the compensation could not be paid to the recorded land owners as they never came forward to claim the same.The High Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 and held that since the compensation was not paid to the landowners (the present respondents), the acquisition in question has lapsed.Hence, the appellant approach the Supreme Court assailing the impugned order of the High Court. ArgumentsThe counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before the Apex Court that the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 whereby earlier judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr.’s case (supra) was overruled. It was further submitted that the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority (supra) opined that the compliance of either of the two conditions i.e. taking over of possession of the land or payment of compensation, is good enough to sustain the acquisition.In this context, it was argued that the possession of land in dispute was taken after the acquisition was complete.It was further highlighted that the subject land is part of project which is of national importance and is required by NHAI for construction of the Delhi-Saharanpur-Dehradun Highway starting from Akshardham Junction to Delhi/UP Border, in the State of Delhi in Phase I of Bharatmala Pariyojana which may be delayed due to pendency of the present appeal.Verdict The Supreme Court noted that the possession of the land was taken over by the Land Acquisition Collector and handed over to Delhi Development Authority and therefore one of the conditions laid down in Indore Development Authority (supra) has been satisfied. “If after the process of acquisition is complete and land vest in the State free from all encumbrances with possession, any person retaining the land or any reentry made by any person is nothing else but trespass on the State land.”, the Court observed.Accordingly, keeping in view the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority’s case (supra), the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.However, the Court held that the respondents shall be entitled to receive compensation as per their entitlement.Case Title: Land and Building Department Through Secretary & Anr. v. Attro Devi & Ors. Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 302Land Acquisition - The vesting of land with the State is with possession. Any person retaining the possession thereafter has to be treated trespasser. When large chunk of land is acquired, the State is not supposed to put some person or police force to retain the possession and start cultivating on the land till...

Land Acquisition | After Taking Possession, Land Vests With State; Any Person Retaining Possession After That Is A Trespasser : Supreme Court

Udit Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Udit Singh

Land Acquisition | After Taking Possession, Land Vests With State; Any Person Retaining Possession After That Is A Trespasser : Supreme Court

Udit Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Udit Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers