{"id":323366,"date":"2024-06-01T11:00:55","date_gmt":"2024-06-01T05:30:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=323366"},"modified":"2024-06-01T10:58:32","modified_gmt":"2024-06-01T05:28:32","slug":"supreme-court-verdict-delhi-land-acquisition-1957-2006-under-1894-act-public-projects","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/01\/supreme-court-verdict-delhi-land-acquisition-1957-2006-under-1894-act-public-projects\/","title":{"rendered":"Inside Supreme Court\u2019s verdict on land acquisitions by Delhi State entities from 1957- 2006 under 1894 Act for public projects"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a batch of appeals filed by Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’), Government of National Capital of Delhi (‘GNCTD’), Land Acquisition Collector (‘LAC’), Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (‘DSIIDC’), East Delhi Municipal Corporation, and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (‘DMRC’) (collectively, the ‘appellants’), against various identical orders of the Delhi High Court, whereby acquisition proceedings had been declared to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2)<\/a> of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013<\/a> ( ‘2013 Act’ ), the three-judge bench of Surya Kant*<\/span>, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ. while setting aside the impugned orders, upheld the acquisition of the respondents’ lands under 1894 Act, clarifying that this will not preclude the respondents from recovery of the compensation amount, if not already paid or to the extent it is not paid, along with interest and other statutory benefits under 1894 Act. The Court further directed the Government of NCT of Delhi and its authorities to take physical possession of the lands, if not already taken, and continue uninterruptedly to complete the public infrastructure projects.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

The GNCTD initiated the land acquisition process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894<\/a> (‘1894 Act’) for the planned development of Delhi. The beneficiaries of such acquisition process were various State entities such as DDA, DSIIDC, and DMRC, who needed the lands for different projects like residential schemes, industrial areas, flyovers, the Delhi Metro, etc. Accordingly, over a long span of 1957-2006, various notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act were issued for acquiring these lands and awards were passed under Section 11 of the 1894 Act affixing compensation. In some cases, the compensation amount was deposited in the treasury since the landowners did not come forward to receive the same. Similarly, possession could not be taken in some cases as the affected landowners had challenged the acquisition proceedings and had obtained an order of stay in their favour.<\/p>\n

In the meanwhile, the 2013 Act was enacted by Parliament, thereby repealing the 1894 Act. This new legislation brought about various reforms to the land acquisition process. Section 24 of the 2013 Act provided that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the earlier regime would be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases, including when compensation had not been paid or possession had not been taken.<\/p>\n

Analysis:<\/p>\n

The Court said that the Limitation Act, 1963<\/a> is a statute of repose founded on considerations of public policy and expediency. The dominant objective underlying the law of limitation is that the title to property, and matters of rights in general, cannot be kept in a state of constant uncertainty, doubt or suspense. Public interest requires that finality should be put to litigation. The Limitation Act, thus, prescribes the specific points of time from which the period of limitation begins to run for the institution of actions. On expiry of such period, no action can be initiated save and except where the court condones the delay for a sufficient cause.<\/p>\n

The Court said that while some of the arguments put forth by the government authorities for condonation of delay, like subsequent change of law, special leeway for government entities, or the Court allegedly frowning upon filing of fresh SLPs; cannot be accepted, however, the appellants have made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay on the ground of public interest.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court in each case, and the acquisition of the respondents’ lands under 1894 Act is consequently upheld. However, the Court clarified that this will not preclude the respondents from recovery of the compensation amount, if not already paid or to the extent it is not paid, along with interest and other statutory benefits under 1894 Act. The Court further directed the Government of NCT of Delhi and its authorities to take physical possession of the lands, if not already taken and continue uninterruptedly to complete the public infrastructure projects.<\/p>\n

The Bench requested the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court to constitute a dedicated bench to decide these writ petitions. Further, the Court said that the nominated bench will accord an opportunity to the landowners\/subsequent purchasers and the appellants to submit additional documents on affidavits whereupon such bench shall embark on an exercise to decide that who between the landowner and the subsequent purchasers is the rightful claimant to receive compensation. The nominated bench was given the authority to obtain independent fact-finding enquiry reports. The inquiry could include determination as to whether after the notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act, any transfer could have been effected and if so, whether such transfer is permitted by law.<\/p>\n

Further, the Court also directed that once compensation is determined, the relevant authority in the land acquisition department will deposit the same with the Reference Court. The Reference Court was directed to invest the deposited amount in a short-term interest-bearing fixed deposit account with a nationalized bank, ensuring its periodical renewal until the relevant writ petition is disposed of by the nominated bench. The Court also said that the release of the invested amount together with the accrued interest to the rightful claimant will be contingent upon the decision of the High Court.<\/p>\n

After exercising powers under Article 142<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> in the interests of doing complete justice, the Court directed that the time limit for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is extended by a year starting from 1-08-2024 whereupon compensation to the affected landowners may be paid in accordance with law, failing which consequences, also as per law, shall follow.<\/p>\n

The parties were directed to maintain status quo regarding possession, change of land use, and creation of third-party rights till fresh acquisition proceedings, as directed, are completed.<\/p>\n

The Court said that since the landowners are not primarily dependent upon the subject lands as their source of sustenance and most of these lands were\/are under use for other than agricultural purposes, after invoking their powers under Article 142<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>, the Court dispense with the compliance of Chapters II and III of the 2013 Act, whereunder it is essential to prepare a Social Impact Assessment Study Report and or to develop alternative multi-crop irrigated agricultural land.<\/p>\n

The Court clarified that this was done to ensure that the timeline of one year extended to complete the acquisition process can be adhered to by the appellants, and the GNCTD, which would also likely be beneficial for the expropriated landowners.<\/p>\n

Similarly, the Court dispensed complying with Sections 13, 14, and 16 to 20 of 2013 Act, as the subject-lands are predominantly urban\/semi-urban in nature and had earlier been acquired for public purposes of paramount importance.<\/p>\n

It also directed that every Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act in this batch of cases shall be treated as a Preliminary Notification within the meaning of Section 11 of the 2013 Act and shall be deemed to have been published as on 01-01-2014.<\/p>\n

The Collector was directed to provide hearing of objections as per Section 15 of the 2013 Act without insisting for any Social Impact Assessment Report and thereafter, proceed to take necessary steps as per the procedure contemplated under Section 21 onwards of Chapter-IV of the 2013 Act, save and except where compliance of any provision has been expressly or impliedly dispensed with. Further, the landowners were asked to submit their objections within a period of four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this Order. Also, such objections were directed to not question the legality of the acquisition process and to be limited only to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 15(1) of the 2013 Act.<\/p>\n

The Court directed the collector to publish a public notice on his website and also in one English and one vernacular newspaper to accord personal hearing to all the persons interested in the land under acquisition in terms of Section 21(1) of the 2013 Act.<\/p>\n

The Collector was also directed to pass an award as early as possible but not exceeding six months, regardless of the maximum period of twelve months contemplated under Section 25 of the 2013 Act. The Bench also directed the market value of the land to be assessed as on 01-01-2014 and the compensation to be awarded along with all other monetary benefits in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act except the claim like rehabilitation etc.<\/p>\n

The Court also directed the Collector to consider all the parameters prescribed under Section 28 of the 2013 Act for determining the compensation for the acquired land. Similarly, the Collector was directed to determine the market value of the building or assets attached to the land in accordance with Section 29 of the 2013 Act, and to further award compensation in accordance with Section 30 of the 2013 Act.<\/p>\n

The Court while remarking that since it is difficult to reverse the clock back, added that the compliance of Chapter (V) pertaining to “Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award” is dispensed with; and the expropriated landowners are entitled to seek reference for enhancement of compensation in accordance with Chapter VIII of the 2013 Act.<\/p>\n

The Court also granted liberty to the parties to approach the High Court if any factual disputes arise in future or if further clarification is required and directed the High Court to decide such cases based on the principles outlined above, considering the facts and, if necessary, the merits of the case.<\/p>\n

[DDA v. Tejpal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1091<\/a>, decided on 17-05-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment Authored by: Justice Surya Kant<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge | Justice Surya Kant: Journey from bustling town of Hisar to the Supreme Court of India<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n