9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1396 - HC - Indian LawsCompensation not paid to the majority of the land holdings -Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement - award announced but not paid Whether the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 would apply to the cases where CALA had announced the award and the amount deposited by the acquiring agencies with the competent authority prior to 31.12.2014 but the compensation was not paid to majority of the acquired land holdings? HELD THAT - It is admitted case that payment to majority of land holdings under acquisition was not made as on 31.12.2014. The provisions of the 2013 Act or determination of compensation shall apply to acquisition in question. The reliance on the decision of Rajasthan High Court in Gopa Ram s case 2018 (1) TMI 1657 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT by NHAI is of no avail. In that case the admitted position was that the land owners had received compensation prior to 31.12.2014. The issue that deposit of compensation would tantamount to the payment made to land owners was not involved. The issue raised that compensation is to be determined only as per factors mentioned in Section 3-G(7) of the 1956 Act is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India v. Sri P. Nagaraju @ Chelluvaish and another 2022 (7) TMI 1413 - SUPREME COURT held that Section 3-G (7) of the 1956 Act provides basic parameters of determination of compensation and after 2013 Act was made applicable to acquisition under the 1956 Act the factors provided under Sections 26 and 28 of the 2013 Act will also apply. Thus beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act would also be applicable to the acquisition in question. From the perusal of the award passed by CALA and the arbitral award it is evident that no reasons are recorded. In award of CALA there is only a passing reference that reports of Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar were called with regard to potential of the land. Reliance was placed upon the prices fixed by District Price Fixation committee for determination of compensation. From the reading of the arbitral award it cannot be even made out as to whether the compensation was determined as per the provisions of the 1956 Act 1894 Act or 2013 Act - It would not be appropriate for this Court under Section 37 of the 1996 Act to comment further on the determination of compensation. Suffice to say the minimum requirement was that the arbitrator should have dealt with the factors to be considered and given reasons either for applying the said factors or for not adopting them. The non-speaking award is patently illegal being violative of Sections 28(1)(a) and 31(3) of the 1996 Act. Conclusion - i) The beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act would also be applicable to the acquisition in question. ii) Non-recording of reasons in consonance with Section 31(3) of the 1996 Act results in violation of Section 28(1)(a) of the 1996 Act rendering the award patently illegal. The issue raised by learned counsel for the land owners for sustaining the award as the modified relief granted under Section 34 of the 1996 Act was not being pressed has been rendered academic and needs no further expounding - the impugned orders and the award are set aside - Appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment are: 1. Whether the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act) apply to the land acquisition in question, given that the compensation was not paid to the majority of the land holdings under acquisition by 31.12.2014. 2. Whether the arbitral award, which enhanced the compensation for the acquired land, was validly reasoned and in accordance with the legal requirements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act). 3. The applicability of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH) in determining the market value of the land and the compensation payable. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Applicability of the 2013 Act The legal framework involves the 2013 Act, which was enacted to provide fair compensation and rehabilitation for those affected by land acquisition. The Act's applicability to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 (the 1956 Act) was debated, especially in light of the guidelines issued by MORTH. The Court interpreted that the 2013 Act's beneficial provisions apply to acquisitions under the 1956 Act, especially when the compensation was not paid to the majority of land holdings by 31.12.2014. The Court emphasized the intent to eliminate discrimination between land acquisitions under different enactments. Key evidence included the guidelines issued by MORTH, which clarified that the First Schedule of the 2013 Act applies if compensation was not paid to the majority of land holdings by the specified date. The Court concluded that the 2013 Act applies to the acquisition in question, rejecting the argument that mere deposit of compensation equates to payment. Issue 2: Validity of the Arbitral Award The relevant legal framework includes Sections 31(3) and 28(1)(a) of the 1996 Act, which require arbitral awards to state reasons unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The Court found that the arbitral award lacked sufficient reasoning, failing to address the factors considered in determining compensation. The award was deemed patently illegal for not complying with the substantive law. The Court highlighted that the lack of reasons in the award violated the requirement for a speaking award, which is essential for ensuring fair consideration of the dispute. The Court concluded that the arbitral award was invalid due to the absence of adequate reasoning, rendering it subject to being set aside. Issue 3: Applicability of MORTH Guidelines The guidelines issued by MORTH were pivotal in determining the applicability of the 2013 Act. They clarified the conditions under which the Act's provisions apply, specifically addressing the payment of compensation. The Court interpreted the guidelines to mean that the 2013 Act applies when compensation was not paid to the majority of land holdings by 31.12.2014, aligning with the guidelines' intent to ensure fair compensation. The Court rejected the argument that deposit of compensation equates to payment, emphasizing the distinct terms used in the guidelines and the statutory provisions. The Court concluded that the guidelines support the application of the 2013 Act to the acquisition in question. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court established several core principles: "The beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act would also be applicable to the acquisition in question." "Non-recording of reasons in consonance with Section 31(3) of the 1996 Act results in violation of Section 28(1)(a) of the 1996 Act, rendering the award patently illegal." The Court set aside the arbitral award and the impugned orders, allowing the parties to pursue fresh arbitration in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasizes the need for arbitral awards to contain adequate reasoning, ensuring transparency and fairness in the determination of compensation for land acquisition.
|
