Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) – Lapse of Proceedings – Award not passed due to interim order – If there is delay in the passing of the award owing to interim orders granted by the High Court or even by the civil courts, where suits may have been filed against acquiring bodies, the land owners cannot take advantage of the same so as to contend that no award was made and consequently there was no payment or deposit of the compensation and that possession of the acquired land continued with them – The land owners having availed the benefit of interim orders granted in their favour in proceedings initiated by them against the acquisition cannot take benefit under s.24(2) of the Act, 2013.
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.14 r. 2 – Adjudication upon all issues along with Preliminary Issue – The courts should adjudicate on all the issues and give its findings on all the issues and not to pronounce the judgment only on one of the issues – The purpose is to avoid the increase of burden on the appellate court and in many cases if the decision on the issue decided is found to be erroneous and on other issues there is no adjudication and no findings recorded by the court, the appellate court will have no option but to remand the matter for its fresh decision – Therefore, to avoid such an eventuality, the courts have to adjudicate on all the issues raised in a case and render findings and the judgment on all the issues involved.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matters to High Court, the Court
HELD: 1. Despite the fact that a number of issues/grounds were raised before the High Court on the legality and validity of the acquisition proceedings, the Single Judge decided only one issue, namely, whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act. Whereas a number of issues/grounds were raised and as such the original reliefs sought (acquisition proceedings under Act 1894) were the main reliefs which were required to be dealt with and considered, unfortunately, the Single Judge did not give findings on the other issues/grounds and on the reliefs sought and disposed of the writ petitions considering only one relief/ground, namely, whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed by virtue of the 2013 Act. When a number of submissions were made on the other issues/grounds, the High Court ought to have considered the other issues and ought to have given the findings on other issues also. Because of not deciding the other issues and deciding the matter only on one issue and thereafter when the decision on such one issue, is held to be bad in law the Court has no other alternative but to remand the matters to the Single Judge for deciding the Writ Petitions afresh on all other issues. [Para 8.2][322-E-H; 323-A-B] Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties & Ors, (2020) 6 SCC 557 : [2019] 15 SCR 795 – relied on.
2. There has been a trend of land owners filing fresh cases seeking lapse of acquisition on the basis of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, although such land owners may have earlier unsuccessfully filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition notifications. Such land owners may have had the benefit of interim orders of stay of further proceedings in the acquisition process or dispossession resulting in a delay in the making of the award and payment/deposit of the compensation and consequently in taking over possession of the acquired land. There being a delay in the passing of the award owing to interim orders granted by the High Court or even by the civil courts, where suits may have been filed against acquiring bodies, the land owners cannot now take advantage of the same so as to contend that no award has been made and consequently there has been no payment or deposit of the compensation and that possession of the acquired land continues with them. The land owners having had the benefit of interim orders granted in their favour in proceedings initiated by them against the acquisition cannot take benefit under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. The High Court or the civil courts which may have granted interim orders in favour of the land owners, ought to consider the aforesaid aspect before applying Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 in favour of the land owners. [Para 9][326C-G]
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors., (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783 –
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.