Supreme Court Clarifies 'Or' in Section 24(2) of Land Acquisition Act, 2013: Acquisition Not Deemed Lapsed If Either Possession or Compensation is Fulfilled

Introduction

The landmark judgment in the case of Government Of NCT Of Delhi And Others (s) v. Krishan Kumar And Others (s) delivered by the Supreme Court of India on February 17, 2023, addresses critical aspects of land acquisition laws under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2013”). This case primarily centered around the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Act, which deals with the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings due to inaction by authorities.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court of Delhi's decision, which had deemed the land acquisition in question as lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, due to non-payment of compensation. The High Court had relied on the earlier Supreme Court decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) to reach its conclusion. However, the Supreme Court, referencing its subsequent ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2020), overruled the Pune Municipal Corporation decision and clarified the interpretation of the term "or" in Section 24(2). The Supreme Court held that the word "or" should be read as "and," meaning that for land acquisition to be deemed lapsed, neither possession nor compensation should have been fulfilled within the stipulated five-year period.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The High Court of Delhi initially relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [(2014) 3 SCC 183], which had previously interpreted Section 24(2) in a manner that allowed for the deemed lapse of land acquisition if compensation was not paid within five years. However, the Supreme Court’s subsequent judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412] significantly altered this interpretation. In Indore, the Supreme Court clarified that the term "or" in Section 24(2) should be interpreted conjunctively as "and," thereby requiring both possession to be unacquired and compensation to be unpaid for the acquisition to be considered lapsed.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously dissected the language of Section 24(2) of the Act, emphasizing the importance of statutory interpretation in alignment with legislative intent. The key legal reasoning can be summarized as follows:

• Conjunctive Interpretation of "Or": The Court concluded that "or" in Section 24(2) logically binds the two conditions of lack of possession and non-payment of compensation, implying that both must be unfulfilled for the acquisition to be deemed lapsed.
• Precedence Over High Court Decision: By overruling the Pune Municipal Corporation decision, the Supreme Court reinforced the need for consistent and updated interpretations of legal provisions.
• Five-Year Inaction Window: The Court clarified that the five-year period for potential lapse does not include periods covered by interim court orders, ensuring that temporary delays do not unjustly invalidate acquisition proceedings.
• Consideration of Possession and Compensation: The judgment stressed that if either possession has been taken or compensation has been paid, the acquisition cannot be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2).

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for land acquisition procedures across India:

• Strengthening Acquisition Processes: By limiting the conditions under which acquisitions can be deemed lapsed, the ruling ensures greater stability and predictability in land acquisition, fostering a more conducive environment for infrastructure and development projects.
• Protection of Landowners: Landowners can take solace in the fact that minor delays in compensation or possession do not automatically render acquisition invalid, provided one of the conditions is met.
• Judicial Consistency: The overruling of previous decisions fosters a more consistent judicial approach to interpreting land acquisition laws, reducing legal uncertainties and potential litigations.
• Administrative Efficiency: Authorities are encouraged to fulfill their obligations regarding compensation and possession more diligently to avoid the risk of acquisition lapsing inadvertently.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Government Of NCT Of Delhi And Others (s) v. Krishan Kumar And Others (s) marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. By clarifying that the term "or" in Section 24(2) should be construed as "and," the Court has set a clear precedent that acquisition cannot be deemed lapsed unless both possession is not taken and compensation is not paid within five years. This ruling not only upholds the integrity of land acquisition processes but also ensures that landowners and authorities have a fair and predictable framework within which to operate. Moving forward, this judgment will guide lower courts and administrative bodies in handling similar cases, thereby reinforcing the legislative intent of the Act and promoting equitable land acquisition practices across India.