Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2023- Land Laws

Constitution of India, 1950; Article 254 - The Tamil Nadu Highways Act 2001 cannot be invalidated on the ground that is provisions are at variance from the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Since the Tamil Nadu Act has received the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, there is no basis in challenging the Act on the ground that is repugnant to the RFCTLARR Act. Though the State Act did not provide fixed timelines for acquiring land as compared to the new Land Acquisition Act (a central Legislature), the same would not vitiate the State Act. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The State Act stood protected after receiving the Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The whole purpose of Article 254(2) was to protect a State enactment when it ran contrary to central legislation. Individual cases involving delay in the acquisition of land under the Highways Act would have to be dealt on merits and that itself would not invalidate the Act. C.S. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 413 : 2023 INSC 510

Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 (Tamil Nadu); Section 3 - Late payment of rent as per the direction of the Revenue Court, is clearly a valid ground for effecting eviction of the cultivating tenant. The 1955 Act confers a privilege on the cultivating tenant vis-a-vis the landlord, by which the cultivating tenant is protected from eviction by the landlord. Further, the scope of eviction of the cultivating tenant at the behest of the landlord, is circumscribed by the Act. Thus, the limited grounds for eviction of the cultivating tenant by the landlord under the Act, must not be frustrated by granting some extra benefit or indulgence to the cultivating tenant. K. Chinnammal v. L.R. Eknath, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 437 : AIR 2023 SC 3534 : 2023 INSC 518

Delhi Land Reforms Act not applicable once an area is urbanised under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 191 : AIR 2023 SC 1427 : 2023 INSC 223

For interpreting Section 121 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, analogy can be drawn from Order XX Rule 18 Of CPC. Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : AIR 2023 SC 2074 : 2023 INSC 373

If the State Government is so conscious and/or interested in taking action against land grabbers, it will be open for the State Government to bring an appropriate legislation with the clear definition of “land grabber” and “land grabbing” or better legislations with a clear definition of “land grabbing”,” land grabber” and “land grabbing cases” and the present order shall not come in their way to enact such legislation and/or better legislations. (Para 7) Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Thamaraiselvam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 400 : (2023) 7 SCC 251 : 2023 INSC 490

Insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, there is no specific enactment and/or Act to deal with land grabbing cases and the Anti-Land Grabbing Special Cells have been formed by G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 to exclusively deal with the land grabbing cases. In absence of any guidelines and/or definition as to which cases can be said to be land grabbing cases, it gives unfettered and unguided and arbitrary powers to the police to treat any land case as a land grabbing case which will be investigated by the Land Grabbing Special Cell. Even a dispute between two private persons which may be under the Specific Relief Act and/or Transfer of Property Act may be considered as a land grabbing case. In absence of any specific guideline and/or definition of “land grabbing cases,” such powers can be abused or misused and such powers can be said to be exercised arbitrarily. Therefore, the High Court has rightly set aside G.O. No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 with liberty to the State Government to bring any appropriate legislation. (Para 6) Government of Tamil Nadu v. R. Thamaraiselvam, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 400 : (2023) 7 SCC 251 : 2023 INSC 490

Land Acquisition - The Land Acquisition Act does not distinguish between classes of owners, and uniformly provides compensation to all class of landowners. The classification made between Pushtaini landowners and Gair-pushtaini landowners, on the basis of the reasoning mentioned above, is violative of the law laid down in the Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao, (1973) 1 SCC 500 and Article 14 of the Constitution. Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422 : 2023 INSC 144

Land Acquisition - When the purpose of the acquisition of the land is for the benefit of the public at large, then the nature of the owner of the said land is inconsequential to the purpose. If such a classification on the basis of the nature of owner is allowed, then on the same grounds, there might be a possibility of future classifications where power holding members of the society may get away with a larger compensation, and the marginalized may get lesser compensation. (Para 59) Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422 : 2023 INSC 144

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Allotment of Plot - Demand of Additional Price - The dispute pertains to demand of additional price for the allotment of plot to the Respondent - the additional price can be demanded in case there is enhancement in cost of the land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act. It is the admitted case of the Appellants that the land for allotment of the plot was never acquired. Hence, there could not be any enhancement in the cost of the land by any authority or court under the Land Acquisition Act. From these undisputed facts on record and the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letter, there is no illegality committed by the learned court below in setting aside the demand of the additional price of the plot allotted to the Respondent. There is no merit in the present appeal. (Para 12 - 13) Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Jagdeep Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 429 : AIR 2023 SC 2257 : 2023 INSC 503

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - If the land is continued to be under temporary acquisition for number of years, meaning and purpose of temporary acquisition would lose its significance. Temporary acquisition cannot be continued for approximately 20 to 25 years. It cannot be disputed that once the land is under temporary acquisition and the same is being used by the ONGC for oil exploration, it may not be possible for the landowners to use the land; to cultivate the same and/or to deal with the same in any manner. (Para 7) Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55 : AIR 2023 SC 992 : (2023) 1 SCR 1021 : 2023 INSC 61

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The Act was made applicable to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the absence of the exercise of power by the Hon’ble Governor under sub-clause (1) of Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule, the said law was applicable to the Scheduled Area. (Para 18) Adivasis for Social and Human Rights Action v. Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 431 : AIR 2023 SC 2658 : 2023 INSC 512

Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Section 5A - Merely because Section 5A has not been mentioned in the said order, the entire acquisition proceedings including notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act, 1894 and more particularly the declaration which was issued after considering the report/objections under section 5A cannot be declared illegal. When the Collector has exercised the power of the appropriate government and a declaration under section 6 of the Act has been issued after considering the report on the objections under Section 5A of the Act, the High Court has seriously erred in quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings on the aforesaid ground. (Para 12, 12.3) Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183 : AIR 2023 SC 1401 : (2023) 2 SCR 84 : 2023 INSC 200

'Land acquisition compensation can't be different based on the nature of ownership': Supreme Court strikes down noida authority's classification. Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422 : 2023 INSC 144

Land cannot be kept under temporary acquisition for years, It violates right to property under Article 300A. Manubhai Sendhabhai Bharwad v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55 : AIR 2023 SC 992 : (2023) 1 SCR 1021 : 2023 INSC 61

Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist without the State Govt. permission. Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449 : 2023 INSC 90

Land Reforms Act, 1954 (Delhi) - Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (Delhi) - Land Reforms Act not applicable to area covered under Municipal Corporation Act - Once a notification has been published in exercise of power under Section 507(a) of the Act, 1957, the provisions of the Act, 1954 cease to apply. (Para 36) Mohinder Singh v. Narain Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 191 : AIR 2023 SC 1427 : 2023 INSC 223

Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab) - the partition having been accepted as per the “Naksha Be”, the joint status of the parties stood severed. The High Court misinterpreted the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and erred in setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the appellate court. The Bench quashed the order of the High Court and allowed the appeal. Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : AIR 2023 SC 2074 : 2023 INSC 373

Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab) ; Section 118 - Disposal of other question - When a Revenue Officer takes a decision under Section 118 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, for partition of property, then the said partition would stand completed and the joint status of the parties would stand severed; subject to the decision in appeal if any preferred by the party. The further proceeding to draw an instrument of partition would be only an executory or ministerial work to be carried out to completely dispose of the partition case. Hence, merely because the instrument of partition was not drawn, it could not be said that the partition was not completed or that the joint status of the parties was not severed. (Para 30) Jhabbar Singh v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 324 : AIR 2023 SC 2074 : 2023 INSC 373

Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973; Section 54 - When within three years various steps were taken for implementation of the scheme including the steps to acquire the land by negotiations and even thereafter on failure to acquire the land by negotiations approaching the State Government to acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act, the High Court has erred in declaring that the scheme has lapsed under section 54 of the Adhiniyam. The High Court has adopted too narrow a meaning while interpreting and/or considering section 54 of the Adhiniyam. (Para 11) Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183 : AIR 2023 SC 1401 : (2023) 2 SCR 84 : 2023 INSC 200

MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam - Scheme will not lapse merely because it was not completed within 3 years despite substantial steps. Indore Development Authority v. Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 183 : AIR 2023 SC 1401 : (2023) 2 SCR 84 : 2023 INSC 200

RFCTLARR Act - Owner cannot pray for lapse of land acquisition after refusing to accept compensation. State of Gujarat v Jayantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 247 : (2023) 2 SCR 696 : 2023 INSC 253

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 (2) - Once the land owner refuses to accept the amount of compensation offered by the Acquiring Body, thereafter it will not be open for the original land owner to pray for lapse of acquisition on the ground that the compensation has not been paid. State of Gujarat v Jayantibhai Ishwarbhai Patel, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 247 : (2023) 2 SCR 696 : 2023 INSC 253

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2013; Section 24 (2) - Is the overruling of the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) by a Constitution Bench judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) a ground to review judgments which followed Pune Municipal Corporation? Supreme Court 2- judge bench delivers split verdict - Justice MR Shah holds subsequent overruling is a ground to review - Justice BV Nagarathna disagrees. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd; 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 204 : 2023 INSC 259

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 (2) - If the acquiring body/beneficiary was not able to take the possession due to pending litigation in a proceeding initiated by the land owner, thereafter the land owner cannot be permitted to take the benefit/advantage of the same and thereafter to contend that as the possession is not taken over (may be due to the pending litigation) still they are entitled to benefit of lapse. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36 : AIR 2023 SC 415 : (2023) 1 SCR 683 : 2023 INSC 39

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; Section 24 (2) - Subsequent purchaser has no locus to challenge the acquisition and/or lapsing of the acquisition. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36 : AIR 2023 SC 415 : (2023) 1 SCR 683 : 2023 INSC 39

Sec 24(2) RFCTLARR Act - Benefit of lapse not available if delay in taking possession was due to pending litigation. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 36 : AIR 2023 SC 415 : (2023) 1 SCR 683 : 2023 INSC 39

Supreme Court stuck down the classification made by the Greater NOIDA Authority between Pushtaini and Gair-Pushtaini Landholders for the purpose of granting compensation upon acquisition. Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 123 : AIR 2023 SC 1117 : (2023) 2 SCR 422 : 2023 INSC 144

Supreme Court upholds quashing of the proceedings initiated by the Orissa Government to acquire nearly 8000 acres of land for Vedanta University proposed to be established by Anil Agarwal Foundation - Violations of the provisions of the LA Act 1894 - Also notes that procedure was vitiated by favouritism - Not appreciable why the Government offered such an undue favour in favour of one trust / company - No application of mind regarding environmental aspects - Two rivers also sought to be acquired. Anil Agarwal Foundation v. State of Orissa, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 300 : 2023 INSC 361

Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Himachal Pradesh); Section 118 - The whole purpose of Section 118 of the 1972 Act is to protect agriculturists with small holdings. Land in Himachal Pradesh cannot be transferred to a non-agriculturist, and this is with a purpose. The purpose is to save the small agricultural holding of poor persons and also to check the rampant conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. A person who is not an agriculturist can only purchase land in Himachal Pradesh with the permission of the State Government. The Government is expected to examine from a case-to-case basis whether such permission can be given or not - By merely assigning rights to an agriculturist, who will be using the land for a purpose other than agriculture, would defeat the purpose of this Act. (Para 17) Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 69 : AIR 2023 SC 698 : (2023) 1 SCR 449 : 2023 INSC 90

The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent discrimination. Shivappa v. Chief Engineer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312

The vesting of land with the State is with possession. Any person retaining the possession thereafter has to be treated as a trespasser. When a 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 - 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 re-entry made by any person is nothing else but trespass on the State land. Land and Building Department through Secretary v. Attro Devi, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 302 : AIR 2023 SC 1964 : 2023 INSC 357

TN Highways Act can't be invalidated due to variance from RFCTLARR Act as it has received president's assent. C.S. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 413 : 2023 INSC 510