Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
A Case of Judicial Law Making.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was repealed, which was a compulsory legal regime and held the field for compulsory acquisition of land for public purpose over a century. It exercises it’s powers without being discharged towards the concurrent responsibilities. The non-symmetric powers between the citizens and the government held physical possessions with the landowners and the compensation withheld for decades. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Act held up a great shift, and availed equilibrium between the state and the citizen. It highly indulged in providing a market which gave new market opportunities. “The raison d’etre behind the enactment of a pro-farmer legislation was to provide a fair and a just compensation and make adequate provisions for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected persons and their families.” The new enactment would avail all the cases which sum up the problems towards the Land Acquisition. The Supreme Court through its judgement delivered Indore Development Authority, the judgment has truly emphasised the meaning of vital questions, which has been adopted and highly have interpreted to words and many essential points. “The conscious use of the conduction ‘or’ in the statement of objects and reasons (supra) leaves no manner of doubt that the intention of Parliament was that in the event of the ‘award not been made’ or ‘ possession’ not been taken not being taken, the benefits to the landowners would accrue under the provisions of 2013 Act”. The Supreme Court has now interpreted 'or' as 'both' or 'and' which has had a significant effect on Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, resulting in a high degree of panacea against state excess and bureaucratic high-handedness covering either ownership or compensation.
The Supreme Court decided in Census Commissioner and others vs. R. Krishnamurthy said, "Legislation is not within the Court's jurisdiction. The Courts do interpret the law and some creative thinking is involved in this interpretation. The power of the courts is to find legislation unconstitutional. Wherever they asked for, that too. However, the courts should not dive into policy making by adding something to the policy or sending a mandamus note.' Hence, it would be fitting for a larger SC bench to rethink this novel process of statutory interpretation which defeats the objects of a law based on rights.
86540
103860
630
114
59824