2021 (11) TMI 1206 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of Section 24(1)(a) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Whether the two-year period specified Under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will apply even after the repeal of the 1894 Act, or the twelve-month period specified in Section 25 of the 2013 Act will apply for the awards made under Clause (a) of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act? - HELD THAT - In the present case, Clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act would apply as the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act had not culminated into an award till the repeal of the 1894 Act. Section 24(1)(a) partly nullifies the legal effect of savings Under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act as it hybridizes application of the 1894 Act and the 2013 Act. While preserving validity of the acquisition proceedings by issue of declarations under the 1894 Act, it states that all the provisions for determination of compensation under the 2013 Act shall apply. The Section consciously saves the legal effect of the notifications issued Under Section 4 and/or Section 6 of the 1894 Act and obviates the necessity to issue a fresh notification under the 2013 Act. This 'perseveration of the determination date' for the computation of compensation for the awards made Under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act is a thought through legislative invocation that curtails time delays and cost escalation of infrastructure projects, as well as checks the post-acquisition notification malpractices, and at the same time ensures that the landowners are entitled to the benefit of the enhanced compensation as per the 2013 Act. Section 11A of the 1894 Act and Section 25 of the 2013 Act prescribe two different periods of limitation with adverse consequences, as on failure to make the award the acquisition proceedings lapse. The choice is between Section 11A of the 1894 Act and Section 25 of the 2013 Act. Law of limitation is generally regarded as procedural as its object is not to create any right but prescribe periods within which legal proceedings should be instituted for enforcement of rights or adjudication orders should be passed. Statutes of limitation, therefore, have retrospective effect insofar as they apply to all legal proceedings brought after they come into force. However, the laws relating to limitation have been held to be prospective in the sense that they do not have the effect of reviving the right of action which is already barred on the date of their coming into operation, nor do they have the effect of extinguishing a right of action subsisting on the date. In this sense, the limitation provisions can be procedural in the context of one set of facts and substantive in the context of a different set of facts. Section 25 of the 2013 Act applies to awards made Under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act and the period of limitation of twelve months would commence from 1st January 2014. Whether the award has been passed within the period stipulated Under Section 25 of the 2013 Act or the acquisition proceedings have lapsed? - HELD THAT - Inasmuch as the High Court had, on 26th May 2014, stayed the operation of the notification dated 19th March 2014, and subsequently modified the order on 23rd September 2014 permitting publication of the awards, the intervening period of 129 days between 26th May 2014 until 23rd September 2014 and in any case of 79 days from 26th May 2014 till the new notification dated 13th August 2014 was issued must be excluded. Ordinarily, an award made or passed before 31st December 2014 would be valid. However, owing to the abovementioned intervening period of 79 days, it could be made up to 20th March 2015. Be it noted that the specific case of the landowners before the High Court was about lapsing of acquisition proceedings owing to the mandate of Section 11A of the 1894 Act. It was not even remotely suggested that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed even in terms of the mandate of the new legislation being 2013 Act, in particular Section 25 thereof. In other words, the High Court was essentially called upon to answer the assail in reference to the lapsing provision in the 1894 Act. However, as aforesaid, that will have no bearing on the fact situation of the present case, to which the regime predicated in Section 25 of the 2013 Act ought to apply. The High Court had to consider the case made out by the landowners regarding subject award being not made within the specified period Under Section 11A of the 1894 Act, to save acquisition proceedings. It, therefore, became necessary to examine the plea of the landowners that the concerned officials backdated the award as 30th October 2014. The prima facie opinion noted by the High Court on the factum of backdating of the subject award would not make any difference to the outcome of the relief pursued by the landowners by way of writ petition for a declaration that the subject acquisition proceedings had lapsed. Such declaration, cannot be issued in the fact situation of the present case. The impugned judgment setting aside the award and holding that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed is, accordingly, set aside. It is held that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed and the award is legal and valid - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Interpretation of Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).
2. Applicability of the limitation period for making an award under the 2013 Act versus the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act).
3. Validity of the award dated 30th October 2014 and whether it was backdated.
4. Impact of a stay order on the computation of the limitation period for making an award.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act:

The primary legal issue was the interpretation of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, which deals with land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act but not completed by the time the 2013 Act came into force. The court examined whether the two-year period under Section 11A of the 1894 Act or the twelve-month period under Section 25 of the 2013 Act applies to awards made under Section 24(1)(a). It concluded that Section 24(1)(a) partially nullifies the savings under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, allowing the 2013 Act's provisions for determining compensation to apply, thus including the twelve-month limitation period specified in Section 25.

2. Applicability of Limitation Period:

The court held that the limitation period for making an award under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act is twelve months from 1st January 2014, the date when the 2013 Act came into force. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to provide a shorter period to expedite the compensation process and ensure early payment to landowners. It rejected the argument that no specific period was prescribed for making an award under Section 24(1)(a), affirming that Section 25's twelve-month period applies.

3. Validity of the Award Dated 30th October 2014:

The court addressed allegations that the award dated 30th October 2014 was backdated. The High Court had found discrepancies in the documentation, suggesting manipulation. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not consider the exclusion of the period during which a stay order was in effect. The court concluded that even if the award was backdated, it was made within the extended period, considering the exclusion of the stay period, and thus was valid.

4. Impact of Stay Order:

The court examined the effect of a stay order issued by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, which had stayed the operation of a notification affecting the determination of compensation. It held that the period during which the stay was in effect should be excluded from the computation of the limitation period for making an award. The court applied the legal maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" (an act of the court shall prejudice no man) to justify this exclusion, ensuring that the authorities were not penalized for delays caused by the court's order.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed and the award was valid. It directed the State of Maharashtra to conduct an inquiry into the alleged manipulation and backdating of the award and take corrective action if necessary. The appeals were allowed without any order as to costs.