Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Applicability of – Land in question was sought to be acquired under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 – Landowners filed the writ petition before the High Court challenging the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 – During the pendency of the writ petition, the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 came to be repealed – Original writ petitioners-landowners submitted that neither the possession of the land in question nor the award has been declared under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 – Thus, the landowners will be entitled to compensation of acquired land in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed to determine the compensation of the acquired lands in accordance with the s.24 (1) of the Act of 2013 – Appellants submitted before the Supreme Court, that the High Court has erred and in view of Clause 2(13) of the J&K Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued or incurred under any law so repealed and that any investigation, legal proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued and enforced as if J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 has not been passed – Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013 will not be applicable – Held: Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 speaks about the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in the present case, the land in question have been acquired as per the provision provided under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 – The case of the landowners that as the provisions of the J&K State Act of 1990 are pari materia to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , the provisions under Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013 will be applicable, cannot be accepted – The language of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 is very clear and unambiguous and it talks about the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 only and does not speak about any other pari materia provision of different statutes – High Court has committed a serious error in directing to pay compensation under the Act of 2013 – Therefore, the impugned common judgment and order of the High Court is quashed – Accordingly, all the writ petitions are remitted back to the High Court to decide in accordance with the law and on its own merit – However, the issue with respect to the applicability of the Act of 2013 is concluded.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. On fair reading of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013, it provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Act, 2013, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where no award under Section
11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of Act, 2013 relating to the determination of the compensation shall apply. Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 speaks about the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the present case, the lands in question have been acquired under the provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990. Therefore, the acquisition of the lands in question is not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It cannot be disputed that prior to the enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 and promulgation of the Jammu & Kashmir (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not applicable at all so as far as the State of Jammu & Kashmir is concerned. It is only on the enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, Act, 2013 shall be made applicable. It is the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that as the provisions of the State Act of 1990 are pari materia to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and therefore, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable. The aforesaid cannot be accepted. The language of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 is very clear and unambiguous. It talks about the land acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 only and it does not speak about any other pari materia provision of different statutes. [Para 5.1][369-F-H; 370-A-C]
2. At this stage the decision of this Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. is required to be referred to. In the said decision it is specifically observed and held that the Act, 2013 repeals only the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not any other Central or State enactment dealing with the acquisition and therefore, what is sought to be saved under the Act, 2013 is only acquisitions which have been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not those acquisitions which have been initiated under any other Central or State enactment. In view of the above binding decision, this Court is of the firm view that the provisions of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable with respect to the acquisition under the J & K Act, 1990. [Para 5.2][370-C-E; 371-C]
3. Even otherwise considering clause 2(13) of the Order, 2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act under which the rights, liabilities, privileges, obligations acquired, accrued, or incurred under the repealed laws stands saved and would be continued under those Acts (in the present case the Act, 1990), it is to be noted that Order, 2019 is subsequent to the Act, 2013. Therefore, it is to be presumed that while enacting the Order, 2019 and providing Clause 2(13) of the Order, 2019, the legislature was conscious of the provisions of the earlier Act (Act, 2013). Under the circumstances also, with respect to the lands acquired under the State Act of 1990, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable at all. [Para 5.3][371-D-E]
4. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in some of the writ petitions there was an order of status quo may be with respect to the possession. It is to be noted that the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the State Act of 1990 was a common notification/declaration. Therefore, there was impediment on the part of the authority in declaring the award. The original writ petitioners cannot be permitted to take benefit of the order of status quo obtained by some of the original writ petitioners and thereafter to contend that as the award has not been declared they shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. [Para 5.4][371-F-H]
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and this Court’s specific finding that with respect to the lands acquired under the provisions of the J & K Act, 1990 Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable and even otherwise as observed hereinabove on merits also as the award could not be declared due to the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Court and the order of status quo, the High Court has committed a serious error in directing the appellants to pay the amount of compensation under the Act, 2013. To that extent the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable, both on facts as well as on law. [Para 6][374-DE]
Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. [M.A. No. 1614-1616 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 7661-7663 of 2018] : 2022 (2) SCALE 818; Indore Development Authority v.
Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.