2014 (9) TMI 941 - SC - Indian Laws

Challenge to Madhavaram Left Flank Water Surplus Course scheme - Acquisition of land - actual land acquisition proceedings commenced with issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 02.02.2005 - matter reached this Court and as a result of an interim order the land holders have remained protected from being dispossessed from their lands in question. - Held that - Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not exclude any period during which the land acquisition proceeding might have remained stayed on account of stay or injunction granted by any court. In the same Act proviso to Section 19(7) in the context of limitation for publication of declaration under Section 19(1) and the Explanation to Section 69(2) for working out the market value of the land in the context of delay between preliminary notification under Section 11 and the date of the award specifically provide that the period or periods during which the acquisition proceedings were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court be excluded in computing the relevant period. In that view of the matter it can be safely concluded that the Legislature has consciously omitted to extend the period of five years indicated in Section 24(2) even if the proceedings had been delayed on account of an order of stay or injunction granted by a court of law or for any reason. Period of five years or more in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act has been prescribed with a view to benefit the land-losers and the period spent in litigation due to challenge to the award or the land acquisition proceedings cannot be excluded. From the discussions made it is amply clear that though there is lack of clarity on the issue whether compensation has been paid for majority of land holdings under acquisition or not there is no dispute that physical possession of the lands belonging to the appellants under consideration in these appeals has not been taken by the State or any other authority on its behalf and more than five years have elapsed since the making of the award dated 30.11.2006 and 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into force. Therefore the conditions mentioned in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are satisfied for allowing the plea of the appellants that the land acquisition proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the Government of Tamil Nadu's order for canal development.
2. Legality of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. Application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
4. Impact of interim court orders on land acquisition proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the Government of Tamil Nadu's Order for Canal Development:
The civil appeals, including Civil Appeal No.8700 of 2013, challenge the Government of Tamil Nadu's G.O. No.122 dated 14.07.1998, which proposed the development of the Madhavaram Left Flank Water Surplus Course canal. The residents argued that the scheme was "misconceived and technically flawed," leading to unnecessary land and building acquisition in the affected area.

2. Legality of Land Acquisition Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
The appeals also contested the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Tamil Nadu State Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The process began with a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 02.02.2005, and an Award was made on 30.11.2006. However, the High Court stayed the dispossession of landholders on 17.2.2005, and the writ petitions were dismissed on 27.4.2007. The Supreme Court's interim order on 18.05.2007 protected the landholders from being dispossessed.

3. Application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:
The appellants argued that under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the acquisition proceedings should be deemed to have lapsed since the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, and physical possession of the land had not been taken, nor compensation paid. The Court examined Section 24(2), which states that if an award was made five years or more before the commencement of the Act but physical possession has not been taken or compensation not paid, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. The Court noted the non obstante clause in sub-section (2) and referenced the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183, which clarified that compensation must be paid directly to the landowner or deposited in court, not merely in the treasury.

4. Impact of Interim Court Orders on Land Acquisition Proceedings:
The State argued that it could not take physical possession due to interim court orders. However, the Court found that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not exclude periods during which proceedings were stayed by court orders. The Court referenced the case of Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. v. State of T.N. & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 533, emphasizing that the legislature intentionally omitted any exclusion for periods of stay. The Court also noted that the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 had provisions to exclude such periods, which were not included in the 2013 Act.

The Court rejected the State's argument that the proviso to Section 24(2) could save the proceedings, as physical possession had not been taken. The Court concluded that the land acquisition proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, allowing the Government of Tamil Nadu to initiate fresh proceedings under the 2013 Act if desired. There was no order as to costs.