2022 (3) TMI 1538 - SC - Indian Laws

Lapse of acquisitions of the lands under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - preliminary notification gazette on 3.9.1994 - acquisition lapsed on account of the award not having been made within a period of two years in terms of Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act - HELD THAT - 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. Though a number of other issues were raised on the legality of the acquisition proceedings under the Act 1894 and though other points for consideration were raised/framed by the High Court reproduced hereinabove since none of the issues are adjudicated by the High Court on merits we have no other alternative but to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petitions afresh and to adjudicate on all the other issues other than the lapse of acquisitions under subsection (2) of section 24 of the Act 2013. The matters are remitted back to the learned Single Judge to decide and dispose of the writ petitions afresh and in accordance with law and on their own merits - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the disposal of the petitions should be deferred pending adjudication by the Land Tribunal.
2. Validity of possession given to APMC.
3. Justification of invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. Mandate to pay or deposit compensation pending disposal of proceedings before the Land Tribunal.
5. Whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under the 2013 Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the disposal of the petitions should be deferred pending adjudication by the Land Tribunal:
The learned Single Judge directed the Land Tribunal to dispose of the application under Section 66 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act within three months. However, the High Court did not provide a final decision on this issue before declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

2. Validity of possession given to APMC:
The High Court did not explicitly address the validity of the possession given to APMC. The learned Single Judge allowed APMC to hand over portions of the land to the Bangalore Development Authority and the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board. However, the High Court's final judgment did not provide a detailed analysis on whether the possession was valid and in accordance with the law.

3. Justification of invoking Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act:
The High Court did not make a final determination on whether the invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was justified. The learned Single Judge mentioned the urgency clause but did not delve deeply into whether the urgency was justified under the circumstances.

4. Mandate to pay or deposit compensation pending disposal of proceedings before the Land Tribunal:
The High Court noted that the APMC did not deposit the compensation due to pending proceedings under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The High Court did not provide a conclusive ruling on whether this justification was valid, instead focusing on the applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

5. Whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed under the 2013 Act:
The High Court declared that the acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. However, this decision was based on the now-overruled judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki. The Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal clarified that the word "or" in Section 24(2) should be read as "nor" or "and," meaning that both possession and compensation must not have been completed for the acquisition to lapse. The High Court's decision was thus found to be unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh adjudication on all issues, except the lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The learned Single Judge was directed to address all points comprehensively and deliver a judgment within twelve months. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for courts to adjudicate on all issues rather than focusing on a single point to avoid unnecessary remands and increased appellate burdens.