Latest News
Back
Document:
Supreme Court Uphold Indore Development Authority Decision In A Land Acquisition Case
The correct interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013, is the subject matter of reference to this five Judge Bench of this Court. The bench stated its view in accordance with 2018 Indore Development Authority case, overruling the 2014 judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation case. The bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Ravindra Bhat had heard the matter.
The case involved the analysis of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. According to this provision, compensation proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 will lapse on the commencement of the 2103 Act, if “compensation has not been paid.” The major point of contention in the case was whether deposit of compensation by the Government in Government treasury can be regarded as “paid” within the meaning of Section 24(2).
The 5-judge bench stated that the term “or” in Section 24(2) should be read as “and”. According to this observation the proceedings under old LA Act will lapse only if there is failure to take possession and failure to pay compensation. If the compensation is paid however the possession is not taken, then also there will be no lapse of proceedings under 1894 Land Acquisition Act.
The question raised by the parties were answered by the Constitution Bench in the following manner:
- Under the provisions of Section 24(1) (a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provision of Act of 2013.
- In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.
- The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. In case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no place.
- The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court.
- In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court.
- The provision of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation before the act of 2013 came into force.
- Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition.
Document:
