JOIN THE LCW
COMMUNITY

Exclusive monthly policy briefs, stories from the ground, quarterly analytics report, curated expert talks, merchandise and much more. Support our work!

Sign up today

Descendents of Farmers from Raisina Hills Demand Compensation under LARR Act

Reported by

Eleonora Fanari

Legal Review by

Edited by

Updated by

Published on

January 18, 2017

May 26, 2023

Edited on

January 18, 2017

State

Delhi

Sector

Infrastructure

People Affected by Conflict

24

Households Affected by Conflict

300

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

725

ha

Starting Year

1912

Location of Conflict

Raisina Hills

New Delhi

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Township/Real Estate

Land Conflict Summary

Commonly referred to as the seat of the Indian government, Raisina Hills -- housing the offices of the president, the prime minister and various Union ministries -- encompasses a vast stretch of land, initially carved out of seven villages. The descendants of those who had to relinquish their land for the development of the parliamentary complex, almost 100 years ago, have demanded due compensation for the land lost.
In 1912, the British government had acquired about 1,700 acres of this land from farmers residing in 150 villages to transfer the Capital of the country from Calcutta (now Kolkata) to Delhi. Some of the descendants of those farmers, now relocated in Haryana, are asking for compensation for the acquired land at the current market rate. While for some, as per the petition, their ancestors were bereft of any compensation, for others, their ancestors were not provided with adequate compensation, with certain landowners refusing to accept the amount.
In April 2015 and later in December 2016, two such descendants -- Mahavir from Raisina village and Sajjan Singh from Malcha village -- filed petitions at the Delhi high court claiming compensation. According to them, their ancestors were evicted under the erstwhile colonial Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Evoking the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, they have demanded that either full compensation be provided to them as per current market rates or the land in Raisina Hills be returned to them. The significant question underpinning the issue is whether the petitioner's claims hold ground, given that over a hundred years have passed since the initial acquisition process.
The petitioners had pinned their hopes on the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, according to which if "an award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act itself, but physical possession of the land has not been taken by the government, or compensation has not been paid, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed" . However, in 2020, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that old compensation claims cannot be revived nor can "unending litigations" derail the progress of current projects. It cited the Raisina Hills issue as an example, stating that the compensation claims of the farmers were invalid. It explained that under the new law, land acquisition processes would only be considered lapsed if they had been initiated five years prior to January 1, 2014, when the new law came into being.

Fact Sheet

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for more compensation than promised

Demand to get back acquired land

Demand for compensation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Private

Type of Common Land

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)

Status of Project

Original Project Deadline

Whether the Project has been Delayed

Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users

Residential area

Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict

Source/Reference

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Legal Data

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Land Acquisition Laws

Legislations/Policies Involved

Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 34 [When compensation has not been paid or deposited before taking possession of the land, the collector shall pay an interest of nine per cent from the time of taking possession until the compensation has been paid]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Section 24(2) [Where an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is made five years or more prior to the date of commencement of this Act, but physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the previous proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and fresh proceedings can be initiated under the new Act]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. (SLP (C) Nos. 9036-9038 of 2016, Supreme Court)
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act cannot be used to reopen old acquisitions where compensation has been paid and the proceedings have been concluded.
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Incorrect estimation of compensation

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Disposed

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

No

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

High Court of Delhi, Supreme Court of India

Case Number

W.P.(C) 129/2017; SLP (C) No. 24781/2017

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

In 2017, the descendants of the prior residents of Raisina Village filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi claiming restoration of their land acquired in 1911-12 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Alternatively, the petitioners demanded a revised compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The high court held that an award made under an old Act cannot be revisited more than a hundred years later merely due to the enactment of a new Act. It noted that such claims cannot be adjudicated and would be barred. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed a Special Leave Appeal before the Supreme Court. The apex court upheld the decision of the high court and also looked into the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and Section 34 of the 1894 Act. The Supreme Court held that Section 24 of the 2013 Act would only apply when acquisition of the land has not been completed in cases where an award was passed five years or more prior to the commencement of the new Act. It would apply to proceedings that are pending as on the date when the 2013 Act was brought into force and does not cover dead or stale claims under the 1894 Act. The top court further held that any claims pending under the 1894 Act would be covered under Section 34 of the said Act. If compensation has not been paid at the time of taking possession of the land, then the affected families will be entitled to a certain rate of interest till the said compensation has been paid. The court thus held that Section 24 of the 2013 Act will be inapplicable in the present case and dismissed the petition.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

No items found.

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

No

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Additional Information

Nature of Protest

Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Farmers of Raisina village

Information on the use of criminal law

What was the action taken by the police?

How many people did the police detain or arrest?

What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?

Did the person face any violence while in police custody?

If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?

If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?

Legislation under which the accused was charged

Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?

In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?

Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?

Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?

Resources

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Images

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Video

Commonly referred to as the seat of the Indian government, Raisina Hills -- housing the offices of the president, the prime minister and various Union ministries -- encompasses a vast stretch of land, initially carved out of seven villages. The descendants of those who had to relinquish their land for the development of the parliamentary complex, almost 100 years ago, have demanded due compensation for the land lost.
In 1912, the British government had acquired about 1,700 acres of this land from farmers residing in 150 villages to transfer the Capital of the country from Calcutta (now Kolkata) to Delhi. Some of the descendants of those farmers, now relocated in Haryana, are asking for compensation for the acquired land at the current market rate. While for some, as per the petition, their ancestors were bereft of any compensation, for others, their ancestors were not provided with adequate compensation, with certain landowners refusing to accept the amount.
In April 2015 and later in December 2016, two such descendants -- Mahavir from Raisina village and Sajjan Singh from Malcha village -- filed petitions at the Delhi high court claiming compensation. According to them, their ancestors were evicted under the erstwhile colonial Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Evoking the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, they have demanded that either full compensation be provided to them as per current market rates or the land in Raisina Hills be returned to them. The significant question underpinning the issue is whether the petitioner's claims hold ground, given that over a hundred years have passed since the initial acquisition process.
The petitioners had pinned their hopes on the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, according to which if "an award was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act itself, but physical possession of the land has not been taken by the government, or compensation has not been paid, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have been lapsed" . However, in 2020, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that old compensation claims cannot be revived nor can "unending litigations" derail the progress of current projects. It cited the Raisina Hills issue as an example, stating that the compensation claims of the farmers were invalid. It explained that under the new law, land acquisition processes would only be considered lapsed if they had been initiated five years prior to January 1, 2014, when the new law came into being.

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Demand for more compensation than promised

Demand to get back acquired land

Demand for compensation

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Region Classification

Urban

Type of Land

Private

Type of Common Land

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Land Acquisition Laws

Legislations/Policies Involved

Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section 34 [When compensation has not been paid or deposited before taking possession of the land, the collector shall pay an interest of nine per cent from the time of taking possession until the compensation has been paid]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Section 24(2) [Where an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is made five years or more prior to the date of commencement of this Act, but physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the previous proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and fresh proceedings can be initiated under the new Act]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors. (SLP (C) Nos. 9036-9038 of 2016, Supreme Court)
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act cannot be used to reopen old acquisitions where compensation has been paid and the proceedings have been concluded.
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Incorrect estimation of compensation

Legal Status:

In Court

Status of Case In Court

Disposed

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

No

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

High Court of Delhi, Supreme Court of India

Case Number

W.P.(C) 129/2017; SLP (C) No. 24781/2017

Main Reasoning/Decision of court

In 2017, the descendants of the prior residents of Raisina Village filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi claiming restoration of their land acquired in 1911-12 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Alternatively, the petitioners demanded a revised compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The high court held that an award made under an old Act cannot be revisited more than a hundred years later merely due to the enactment of a new Act. It noted that such claims cannot be adjudicated and would be barred. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed a Special Leave Appeal before the Supreme Court. The apex court upheld the decision of the high court and also looked into the application of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and Section 34 of the 1894 Act. The Supreme Court held that Section 24 of the 2013 Act would only apply when acquisition of the land has not been completed in cases where an award was passed five years or more prior to the commencement of the new Act. It would apply to proceedings that are pending as on the date when the 2013 Act was brought into force and does not cover dead or stale claims under the 1894 Act. The top court further held that any claims pending under the 1894 Act would be covered under Section 34 of the said Act. If compensation has not been paid at the time of taking possession of the land, then the affected families will be entitled to a certain rate of interest till the said compensation has been paid. The court thus held that Section 24 of the 2013 Act will be inapplicable in the present case and dismissed the petition.

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

No items found.

Whether criminal law was used against protestors:

No

Reported Details of the Violation:

Date of Violation

Location of Violation

Nature of Protest

Advocacy (for inclusion in courts)

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Farmers of Raisina village

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Documented By

Text Link

Reviewed By

Text Link

Updated By

Text Link

Edited By

Text LinkLand Conflict Watch

Other Land Conflicts in Delhi

cross
Not a member yet?
Sign up now