Tag: #landacquisition

–Report by Umang Kanwat 

The recent case of Government of NCT of Delhi v Krishan Kumar was based on the Statement of Objectives and Reasons of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which discussed the “sacrifices” of the affected individuals who were “unavoidably” losing their property rights for the greater good of society. The Land Acquisition Act of 2013 aims to correct this unbalanced paradigm of development by making the land acquisition process more collaborative and facilitating. 

FACTS:

Affirming that the acquisition of the disputed lands was deemed to have terminated in accordance with Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the petitioner felt wronged and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order issued by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in a Writ Petition.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

It was argued that since the petitioners did not assert that they had possession of the subject land in their writ petition but rather that the government was obligated to return the property to them, it was implied that they were admitting that the government had taken actual vacant physical possession of the land. The petitioners had complained about the lack of remuneration.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The High Court had granted the writ petition and stated that the acquisition with regard to the subject land is assumed to have expired under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, on the grounds that the compensation has not been paid.Regarding the action brought on behalf of the Act, the High Court made no findings, including that the beneficiary department was awarded immediate ownership of the disputed lands in question. As the entire land acquisition processes are regarded to have expired, it was the contention on behalf of the respondents that possession of the land is liable to be returned to the petitioners.

Indore Development Authority:

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the “2013 Act”), which governs State land purchase, rehabilitation, and resettlement, was unclear in this case, but a five-judge Supreme Court bench had clarified it.The question in front of the court was whether land acquisition procedures may be terminated if the State failed to compensate landowners was a key concern. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was repealed in 2013, and the Court had to decide how that act interacts with it. This created complications. 

In Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal, the landowners argued that acquisitions undertaken in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 had expired and that new procedures in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 were necessary.In this landmark ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that cases still pending under the 2013 Act would have to be renewed and would expire under two circumstances.

The five-judge panel also held that landowners who rejected the offered compensation or asked for more money may not pursue compensation under Section 24(2) of the Act. However, if compensation is not given in accordance with Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, the proceedings will not be regarded as having ended, and compensation must be given in line with the Act of 2013’s rules.

JUDGEMENT:

The impugned judgement and order issued by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question was deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 as it was observed to be unsustainable and so it deserved to be quashed set aside as a result of applying the law established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority to the facts of the case at hand.

As a result, the appeal was accepted. However, the court decided that given the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no judgement regarding costs, and any pending applications would likewise be dismissed.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3YHZgln

-Report by Pragati Prajeeta

In the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs Manpreet Singh with Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Secretary Land & Building Department vs Manpreet Singh, a common question of law and facts arose in appeals out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, and hence both the appeals are being decided and disposed of together in a common judgment and order by the Supreme Court of India. And the main question, in this case, was Whether a subsequent purchaser has the locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition?

FACTS

The subsequent purchaser is the original writ petitioner, who in the year 2018 acquired the rights and interest in the land. But the original writ petitioner was not the recorded owner when under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, of 1894 the award was issued concerning the land in question. And from all the records, it appeared before the High Court, that the claimed right by the original writ petitioner was based on the 2015 Assignment. Under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 notifications in this present case were issued and the award was declared.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS

The appellants vehemently submitted that as such the respondent is the subsequent purchaser and is the original writ petitioner, who after the Act,2013 came into force purchased the property hence therefore as observed by this Court in the case, they held that he had no locus to challenge the acquisition/lapsing of the acquisition proceedings under the Act, 2013 as he is a subsequent purchaser. Then it was submitted that the High Court declared material that the acquisition is deemed to lapse in the writ petition filed about because of the reason that the respondent is a subsequent purchaser, and had no locus to challenge it as observed and held by the Court.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The learned senior counsel, however, has submitted that the decision of this Court needs some re-consideration under the Act, 2013 for certain relevant aspects which have not been previously dealt with and/or have been considered. But at the same time, he is not disputing or contradicting the fact that the subsequent purchaser is the original writ petitioner, who in the year 2018 acquired the right, title and interest in the disputed property or even after Act, 2013 came into force.

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court after looking into the facts and reasons stated the appeal is successful. And in the view of the latter case, the High Court committed some serious error while for instance entertaining the writ petition of the response that is the original writ petitioner. Then it was also seen that the court has materially erred while declaring concerning the land in question, acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 has lapsed in a writ petition filed by, the original writ petitioner, the respondent who is a subsequent purchaser.

The Supreme Court then held that the judgment and order passed by the High Court are hereby quashed and set aside. The original Writ Petition filed before the High Court stands dismissed. At the same time all the pending applications, stand disposed of and the present appeals are allowed accordingly. But at the same time looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it held that there shall be no order as to costs.

-Report by Anjana C

It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Subhash Chander Sehgal & Ors. the writ petition stands dismissed, and the current appeal will be pursued.

Facts of the Case: 

• Unsatisfied with the decision of the Delhi High Court, the petitioner has appealed. 
• The possession of the land was taken by the authority in 1987and was utilized as a park by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation. 

In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Association, the following was said that has been applied to this case: 

• According to Section 24(1)(a), there is no lapse in proceedings if there is an award on the date of commencement of the 2013 Act. 
• If the award has been made within 5 years (excluding the period of an interim order of the Court), the proceedings will be according to the 2013 Act under Section 24(1)(b) under the 1894 Act, regarding it as not repealed. 
• If the possession of land has been taken over and compensation has not been paid, there is no lapse. 
• If compensation is not paid and possession has not been taken, there is no lapse. 
• If the compensation has not been deposited in court, all beneficiaries to the landholding will be entitled, as on the date of notification, to compensation under Section 4 of the 2013 Act.  
• Non-deposit does not result in a lapse of land acquisition proceedings. 
• If compensation has been tendered under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, he cannot state that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) as a result of non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in Court. 
• The obligation to pay is complete when the amount due is tendered in accordance with Section 31(1). 
• Landowners refusing to accept compensation/ who seek reference for a higher compensation are not in the position to claim lapse under Section 24(2) under the 2013 Act. 
• The method of acquiring land under the 1894 Act under Section 24(2) is by making an inquest report/ memorandum. 
• Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act. It does not reopen cases/ proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of the mode of possession.

Judgment of the case: 

If there is no lapse in acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the land remains in the possession of the appellant. There will be no question of payment of compensation to the petitioners. It was said that the writ petitioners were entitled to compensation according to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. All of the above taken into consideration, the Court declared the High Court’s order to be quashed and set aside. The writ petition filed before the High Court was dismissed. 

The present appeal was allowed, and no order was given regarding costs incurred by the parties.