Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2017 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1828 - SUPREME COURTApplicability of provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - land is acquired under the provisions of KIAD Act - HELD THAT:- The entire move on the part of the Appellants was bonafide one, though there was an accidental slip on their part that insofar as Respondents are concerned, no consent to the amount of compensation fixed was given by them. It appears that the Appellants-authorities did not proceed further to determine the compensation in respect of Respondents' land as they nurtured a bonafide belief that with the fixation of compensation as per the Minutes dated 9th September, 2005 all the land owners, including the Respondents, had agreed with the same and, therefore, no further exercise was required. Had the Appellants-authorities been more careful, they would have noticed that insofar as Respondents herein are concerned, they are not the consenting parties. In that event, they could have brought them on board with other land owners by taking their specific consent as well or proceeded further Under Section 29(3) of the KIAD Act. Taking these factors into consideration, the learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 9th November, 2012 permitted the Appellants to proceed on the basis of the Gazette notification dated 15th June, 2005 acquiring the land and determine the compensation by making an award in this behalf. By this process, Appellants were allowed to proceed afresh to determine the compensation Under Section 29(2) of the KIAD Act by reaching an agreement with the Respondents, and failing which to refer the case to the Deputy Commissioner Under Section 29(2) for determination of the amount of compensation. The learned Single Judge, by adopting this course of action, specifically rejected the contention of the Respondents herein to quash the proceedings. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment, however, has quashed the acquisition proceedings itself holding that they have lapsed. For this purpose, the High Court has taken aid of Section 24 of the New LA Act - This approach of the High Court is found to be totally erroneous. In the first instance, matter is not properly appreciated by ignoring the important aspects mentioned in para 24 above. Secondly, effect of non-applicability of Section 11A of the Old LA Act is not rightly understood. Having regard to the aforesaid raison d'etre for non-application of the Old LA Act, on the parity of reasoning, provision of Section 24(2) of the New LA Act making Section 11A of the Old LA Act would, obviously, be not applicable. The view taken by the learned Single Judge was correct in law which should not have been interfered with by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment. It is significant to state that insofar as direction of the Single Judge is concerned that was accepted by the Appellants herein, as the Appellants did not challenge the same. It is the Respondents which had filed the intra court appeal. Thus, Appellants by their aforesaid conduct, are satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge in directing them to determine the compensation. The direction passed by the Single Judge with a direction to the Appellants authorities to fix the compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 29 of the KIAD Act, restored - appeal allowed.
|