Justice, Reddy, O Chinnappa had held in the judgment of State Of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan
Tale, 1983 SCR (3) 327, that the fundamental right to property has been abolished because of its incompatibility with the goals of “justice” social, economic and political and “equality of status
and of opportunity” and with the establishment of “a socialist democratic republic, as contemplated by the Constitution.
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein referred as “the Act”) has been brought in this regard and it
regulates land acquisition and lays down the procedure and rules for granting compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected persons in India. It provides for a fair compensation to those whose land has been taken away and shall bring transparency to the process of acquisition of land to set up factories or buildings, infrastructural projects and assures rehabilitation of those affected. The Act replaces the archaic Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Act herein is to apply when Government acquires land for its own use, hold and control, including land for Public sector undertakings or for the purpose of transferring it for the use of
private companies for stated public purpose. Enforcement of the Act shall ensure just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by such acquisition. Adequate provisions shall be made for the rehabilitation and resettlement of such affected families/landowners.
Land acquisition is done in consultation with institutions in the form of local self-government and local Gram Sabhas and in a humane, participative, informed and transparent process. Land
acquisition takes place for industrialization, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanization.
However the most contentious of all provisions of the Act is Section 24(2) which speaks of challenge to the land acquisition and lapsing of the land acquisition. The great conundrum of this
section is on failing of the authorities to take possession of the land acquired and/or failure in payment/deposit of the compensation within five years from the date of publication of the
notification for the land acquisition.
In 2014, a three-Judge Bench in the case of Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Solanki,
(2014) 3 SCC 183 it was held that deposit of compensation from the Government department in the treasury cannot be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners as per the scheme of
the Act and compensation not paid to the landowner would then lead to lapse of land acquisition proceedings u/s 24(2) of the Act.
What was held in the aforesaid Pune Municipal Corpn. Case was later on over-ruled in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court opined that compensation under Section 24 of the Act was deemed to have been paid if the money was deposited in the government treasury and the same is not required to be deposited in court.
Due to the aforesaid conflict between the judgments, a larger bench was constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the five judge bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 held that proceedings under Section 24 of the Act will not lapse if compensation has been deposited in the treasury by the Government, without any reference/requirement of payment to the landowner or court concerned. Thus by doing so the earlier judgment of the three judge bench in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412 was upheld by the Hon’ble Court.
The same being reiterated and quoted again recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India in the case of DDA v, Bhagwant Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7961/2022 and GNCTD Thr.
Secretary, Land & Building Department & Anr. v. Ram Prakash Sehrawat & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9201/2022.
Infact in the case of GNCT v. Sunil Jain &Ors., Civil Appeal No. 280/2023 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India that even if the land acquiring body was not able to take the
possession of the land due to pending litigation in a proceeding initiated by the land owner, the
same cannot be allowed to be used as an advantage/benefit by the landowners/subsequent purchasers from the earlier land owners against the land acquiring body. A subsequent purchaser of the land has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition of the land as has been held in the case of Shiv Kumar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) 10 SCC 229, Delhi Administration Through Secretary, Land and Building vs. Pawan Kumar & Ors.,
Civil Appeal No.3646 of 2022 and Delhi Development Authority versus Godfrey Phillips (I) Ltd.
& Ors, Civil Appeal No.3073 of 2022. It would thus be advisable for any land owner whose land has been acquired/is being acquired to do proper follow-ups with the land acquiring department/agency with regard to compensation
being paid and the manner in which compensation is being paid.
By- Vaibhav Mishra
LLM, LLB, B. COM(H)
Advocate- Supreme Court Of India & Delhi High Court