Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s. 24 Proviso – Whether the proviso governs s. 24(1)(b) or s. 24(2) – Held: The proviso governs s. 24(1)(b) and not s. 24 (2) – However the question is referred to larger Bench.
Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court HELD: 1. Section 24(1) and (2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 deal with different subjects. Section 24(1) deals with compensation whereas Section 24(2) deals with lapsing of the acquisition itself. There are many cogent reasons as to why the proviso in Section 24 is really a proviso to Section 24(1)(b) and not to Section 24(2). [Para 9][480-C, D]
2.1 Firstly, the scheme of Section 24(1) is to provide enhanced compensation under the 2013 Act even in cases where a Section 4 notification has been made under a repealed statute, namely, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but where no award has been pronounced on 01.01.2014, when the 2013 Act comes into force. This is clear from a reading of Section 24(1)(a). Section 24(1)(b) then goes on to state that where an award has been made under the repealed Act prior to 01.01.2014, then compensation and all other provisions of the repealed Act will continue to apply to such award. To this, an exception has been carved out by the proviso, which states that even in such cases where compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then all beneficiaries specified in Section 4 notification shall be entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act. Read thus, the proviso is an exception to Section 24(1)(b) in cases where a Section 4 notification covers many land holdings in the majority of which, compensation has not yet been deposited, making it clear, therefore, that compensation not having been paid to substantially all such persons, the more beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act should apply. Read thus, there is no inconsistency or repugnancy between the proviso and Section 24(1)(b) of the Act. [Para 10][480-D-G]
2.2 If, on the other hand, the proviso is read as a proviso to Section 24(2), many anomalies arise. Firstly, for sub-section (2) of Section 24 to apply, (i) the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act should have been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act; and (ii) physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid. [Para 11][480-H; 481-A-C]
3. Secondly, if read as a proviso to Section 24(2), arbitrary results would ensue, rendering the proviso arbitrary, and hence, liable to be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Para 12][483-D]
4. Thirdly, if converse case is taken where an award is made in respect of a large number of lands covered by the same Section
4 notification, and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has been deposited. Can it then be said that in such a case, lapsing will take place because the proviso in such a case will not apply? Obviously, therefore, whether compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has or has not been deposited would have no bearing on whether lapsing does or does not take place under a totally independent provision, namely, Section 24(2). [Para 13][483-G, H; 484-A]
5. Fourthly, the language of the proviso makes it clear that it does not refer to the award spoken of in Section 24(2) for two reasons. First, the expression, “an award has been made” in the proviso cannot be equated to “such award has been made”. Also, the words “an award” being made “five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act” are conspicuous by their absence in the proviso. Reading these words in, when the legislature has chosen not to add them, would do violence to the literal language and plain meaning of the proviso. However, if the proviso is read as a proviso to Section 24(1)(b), it would be perfectly compatible with all awards that are made under Section 11, whether within or beyond five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. [Para 14][484-B, C]
6. The 2013 Act is a beneficial legislation. The Preamble casts light on the object sought to be subserved by the Act in general, as well as by Section 24. Land acquisition is to take place in a humane fashion, with the least disturbance to the owners of the land, as also, to provide just and fair compensation to affected persons. Viewed in the light of the Preamble, this legislation, being a beneficial legislation, must be construed in a way which furthers its purpose. On the assumption, therefore, that two views are possible, the view which accords with the beneficial object sought to be achieved by the legislation, is obviously the preferred view. [Para 15][484-D-F]
7. However, since the judgment in *Indore Development Authority case which refers to different aspects of the same provision, namely, Section 24 of the 2013 Act has been referred to a Bench of five Judges, it is better that the present judgment is also referred to the same Bench which is hearing *Indore Development Authority case afresh. [Para 17][486-B, C] DDA v. Sukhbir Singh (2016) 16 SCC 258 – relied on. Dr. Manjula Krippendorf v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2017) 15 SCC 133 : [2017] 7 SCR 924; Delhi Metro Rail Corporation v. Tarun Pal Singh (2018) 14 SCC 161; Dwarka Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf (1976)
1 SCC 128 : [1976] 1 SCR 277; S. Sundaram Pillai v. V. R. Pattabiraman (1985) 1 SCC 591: [1985] 2 SCR 643; J. K. Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers (1996) 6 SCC 665 : [1996]
6 Suppl. SCR 798; Eera (through Dr. Manjula
Krippendorf) v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2017)
15 SCC 133 : [2017] 7 SCR 924; Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC
353 : [2014] 7 SCR 799; Delhi Metro Rail Corporation v. Tarun Pal Singh (2018) 14 SCC 161; *Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412 : [2018] 2 SCR 1 – referred to.
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.