2017 (12) TMI 1887 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the proceedings lapsed in the instant case? - interpretation of statute - expression used 'compensation has not been paid' in Section 24(2) relate to deposit of the amount as envisaged Under Section 31(2) of the Act of 1894 or not - HELD THAT - There is already a reference made as to the applicability of Section 24 in Yogesh Neema and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2016 (1) TMI 1511 - SC ORDER . There are several other issues arising which have been mentioned above but have not been considered in Pune Municipal Corpn. 2014 (1) TMI 1643 - SUPREME COURT . Thus, here is a case where the matter should be considered by a larger Bench. Let the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the proceedings lapsed under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
2. Interpretation of the terms "compensation has not been paid" and "deposit" under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Act of 2013.
3. The impact of non-deposit of compensation under Section 31(2) of the Act of 1894 on the validity of acquisition proceedings.
4. The effect of refusal by landowners to accept compensation on the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
5. The role of interim orders and litigation in the applicability of Section 24 of the Act of 2013.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Lapse of Proceedings under Section 24 of the Act of 2013:

The primary issue was whether the land acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The court examined whether the conditions stipulated in Section 24(2) were met, specifically whether the physical possession of the land was taken or the compensation was paid. The High Court had held that the proceedings lapsed based on precedents set by Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu. However, the appellant contended that the compensation was offered but refused by the landowners, hence the proceedings did not lapse.

2. Interpretation of "Compensation Has Not Been Paid" and "Deposit":

The court analyzed the expressions "compensation has not been paid" in Section 24(2) and "deposit" under Section 31(2) of the Act of 1894. The appellant argued that the term "paid" does not equate to "deposit" and that the failure to deposit in the Reference Court only results in higher interest under Section 34, not the lapse of proceedings. The court considered the distinction between these terms and the implications for the continuation of acquisition proceedings.

3. Impact of Non-Deposit Under Section 31(2):

The appellant argued that non-deposit of compensation under Section 31(2) does not invalidate the acquisition proceedings. Instead, it results in the obligation to pay higher interest as per Section 34. The court noted that the Act of 1894 did not provide for the lapse of proceedings due to non-deposit, and thus, Section 24 of the Act of 2013 should not be interpreted to invalidate such proceedings.

4. Refusal by Landowners and Applicability of Section 24(2):

The court examined the effect of the landowners' refusal to accept compensation on the applicability of Section 24(2). The appellant contended that the refusal to accept compensation should not allow landowners to claim the benefit of Section 24(2), especially when they have engaged in litigation to quash the acquisition proceedings. The court was urged to consider the refusal as a factor against the lapse of proceedings.

5. Role of Interim Orders and Litigation:

The court also considered the impact of interim orders and ongoing litigation on the applicability of Section 24. The appellant argued that landowners who have obtained interim orders or engaged in litigation should not benefit from Section 24, as the delay and refusal to accept compensation were due to their actions. The court was urged to prevent the abuse of process by landowners seeking to revive concluded cases under the guise of Section 24.

Conclusion:

The court acknowledged the complexity of the issues and the need for a larger bench to address the interpretation of Section 24 in light of these factors. It was noted that the matter should be referred to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders, considering the broader implications and the need for clarity on the application of Section 24 in similar cases.