1. Possession of land taken under Section 3 of The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 — Dispute over compensation and demand for compulsory acquisition. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1518
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT AND NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Union of India And Others – Appellant
Versus
Kesang Dorjee And Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos.7042-7044 of 2025 (Arising Out of SLP (C)Nos. 14787-14789 of 2023)
Decided on : 20-05-2025
The High Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus to compel the State to acquire land. Land requisitioned under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, cannot be directed to be acquired under the 2013 Act; compensation disputes must be resolved via arbitration under Section 8 of the 1952 Act.
Headnote:(A) The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 - Sections 3, 4, 5, and 8 - The Union of India is aggrieved by the High Court's directions to acquire land; the possession was taken under the 1952 Act but respondents sought acquisition under the 2013 Act - The High Court's directive for acquisition was found to lack legal basis and oversight. (Paras 3, 10, 12, 16, 18)
(B) Compensation - The land requisitioned by the Armed Forces requires compensation to be determined under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act - The court mandates appointment of an arbitrator to assess compensation. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The Indian Army took possession of land in 2010 for border facilities, with the owners claiming inadequate compensation and seeking acquisition under newer legislation after the older Act was repealed.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded the High Court wrongly directed acquisition without proper legal grounding and asserted the obligation for the government to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate compensation.
Issues: (i) Authority of High Court to compel acquisition via writ - (ii) Legal permissibility of acquiring land already requisitioned under the 1952 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction in mandating acquisition and clarified that appropriated land under the 1952 Act cannot be compelled for acquisition under the 2013 Act.
Result: Appeals allowed; High Court directives set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a writ of mandamus can compel compulsory acquisition of land and whether land requisitioned under the 1952 Act can be acquired under the 2013 Act. (Para 12 )
3. Possession under the 1952 Act is statutorily protected; compensation disputes must be resolved via the arbitrator mechanism provided under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act. (Para 13 , 14 , 16 )
4. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the state to acquire land; compensation for requisitioned property must be determined per the governing statute. (Para 12 , 17 )
5. High Court judgments directing land acquisition set aside; Union of India directed to appoint an arbitrator for compensation determination under Section 8(1)(b) of the 1952 Act. (Para 16 , 18 )
6. Can a court issue a writ of mandamus to compel the government to acquire land?
No, the court held that the High Court could not have issued a direction for the compulsory acquisition of land through a writ of mandamus. (Para 12 , 17 )
7. How is compensation determined for land requisitioned under The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952?
Compensation is determined through mutual settlement; failing that, the Central Government must appoint an arbitrator, who is or has been or is qualified to be a High Court Judge, under Section 8(1)(b). (Para 14 , 16 )
8. Can land already under requisition under the 1952 Act be directed to be acquired under the 2013 Act?
The court found that the High Court could not direct the acquisition of land already under requisition under the 1952 Act using the provisions of the 2013 Act. (Para 12 , 17 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The Union of India through Cabinet Secretary, the Ministry of Defence and other Army Authorities are aggrieved by judgments dated 18.12.2019, 16.11.2022, and 09.03.2023, passed by the Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench. Vide the first judgement, the High Court has disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the private respondents with a direction to initiate acquisition of the subject land. Vide the second judgment, the High Court dismissed the intra-court appeal against the first judgement on the ground of delay and laches. The final order dated 09.03.2023 eventually turns down the Review Petition filed by the appellants.
3. Respondent Nos.1-24 belong to the community which own the land in villages Bona and Mayum, near the 'Line of Actual Control' in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The Indian Army took possession of 73.96 acres of land in village Bona and 81 acres of land in village Mayum on 01.01.2010 for construction of various facilities near the border. The possession was taken in purported exercise of powers under Section 3 of The Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act'). Section 3 of the aforesaid Act empowers the Competent Authority to requisition any property which, in its opinion, is needed for any public purpose of the Union of India.
4. Section 4 of the Act vests power in the Competent Authority to take physical possession of the property, which has been requisitioned under Section 3 of the Act.
5. Thereafter, Section 5 enables the Authorities to use the properties for such purposes as may be mentioned in the notice of requisition.
6. In the instant case, we are concerned about the issue that revolves around Section 8 of the Act. The said provision outlines the principles and method of determining compensation for the land which has been requisitioned, or which may have subsequently been acquired.
7. As can be seen from a reading of the statute, the possession of the subject land, taken over by our Armed Forces, is statutorily protected under Section 3 of the Act. The statutory scheme contemplates that the aggrieved owners can seek compensation for their requisitioned property, which is to be assessed in accordance with the criteria laid down in Section 8 of the Act.
8. According to learned Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the appellants, compensation payable to the respondents in lieu of possession of their land has been assessed from time to time by the Collector of the area and such compensation has been regularly paid for the requisitioned property.
9. It seems that respondent Nos.1-24, who belong to the community in whom the land statedly vests, were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation. They have been, accordingly, running from pillar to post for impressing upon the Union of India "to acquire" the subject land. In other words, the respondents have been making efforts that instead of invoking powers under the 1952 Act for requisition of the property, the same may be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. With the passage of time, and as a result of repealing of the 1894 Act, the respondents have substituted their demand, now seeking acquisition of their land under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the 2013 Act").
10. It is in this backdrop that a learned Single Judge of the High Court passed an order, dated 18.12.2019, which suggests that efforts were made for mutual settlement between the parties, and it was in furtherance of the settlement between the parties that the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the DM, Upper Sian District, Arunachal Pradesh, to initiate acquisition proceedings to acquire the subject land under the 2013 Act. It is pointed out that the purported settlement, referred to by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment was, in
