9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1643 - SC - Indian LawsMeaning of compensation has not been paid under Section 24(2) of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 w.e.f. 01-01-2014 - Held that - 2013 Act puts in place entirely new regime for compulsory acquisition of land and provides for new scheme for compensation rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or affected by such acquisition. Insofar as sub-section (1) of Section 24 is concerned it begins with non obstante clause. By this Parliament has given overriding effect to this provision over all other provisions of 2013 Act. It is provided in clause (a) that where the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award under Section 11 is made then the provisions of 2013 Act shall apply relating to the determination of compensation. Clause (b) of Section 24(1) makes provision that where land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the 1894 Act and award has been made under Section 11 then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the 1894 Act as if that Act has not been repealed.Section 24(2) also begins with non obstante clause. This provision has overriding effect over Section 24(1). Section 24(2) enacts that in relation to the land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act where an award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and either of the two contingencies is satisfied viz; (i) physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid such acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. 1894 Act being an expropriatory legislation has to be strictly followed. The procedure mode and manner for payment of compensation are prescribed in Part V (Sections 31-34) of the 1894 Act. The Collector with regard to the payment of compensation can only act in the manner so provided. It is settled proposition of law that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Now this is admitted position that award was made on 31.01.2008. Notices were issued to the landowners to receive the compensation and since they did not receive the compensation the amount (Rs.27 crores) was deposited in the government treasury. Can it be said that deposit of the amount of compensation in the government treasury is equivalent to the amount of compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested? We do not think so. In a comparatively recent decision this Court in Agnelo Santimano Fernandes Ivo Agnelo Santimano Fernandes and Others v. State of Goa and Another 2011 (2) TMI 1352 - SUPREME COURT ;relying upon the earlier decision in Prem Nath Kapur Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd. 1995 (11) TMI 441 - SUPREME COURT has held that the deposit of the amount of the compensation in the state s revenue account is of no avail and the liability of the state to pay interest subsists till the amount has not been deposited in court. From the above it is clear that the award pertaining to the subject land has been made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position that compensation so awarded has neither been paid to the landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court. The deposit of compensation amount in the government treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that the subject land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. - Decided against the appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the expression "compensation has not been paid" under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. 2. Validity of land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act. 3. Effect of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act. 4. Applicability of Section 114 of the 2013 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of the Expression "Compensation Has Not Been Paid" Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act: The core issue revolves around the interpretation of the term "compensation has not been paid" as mentioned in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Supreme Court delved into Section 31 of the 1894 Act, which mandates that the Collector should tender payment of compensation to the persons interested. If the compensation is not accepted or there are disputes, the Collector must deposit the amount in the court. The Court concluded that "paid" should not be equated with "offered" or "tendered." Instead, for the purposes of Section 24(2), compensation is considered "paid" if it is offered and deposited in the court where a reference under Section 18 can be made. The Court emphasized that depositing the amount in the government treasury does not equate to payment to the landowners. 2. Validity of Land Acquisition Proceedings Under the 1894 Act: The landowners challenged the land acquisition proceedings on multiple grounds, including the absence of a resolution from the General Body of the Corporation, non-compliance with Sections 5A and 7, and lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 11A. The Bombay High Court had previously quashed the acquisition proceedings, citing these statutory breaches. The Supreme Court noted that if the acquisition proceedings are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, it would not be necessary to examine the legality and correctness of the High Court's judgment on these grounds. 3. Effect of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act on the Land Acquisition Proceedings Initiated Under the 1894 Act: Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act states that if an award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act was made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and either physical possession of the land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. The Supreme Court found that the award in this case was made on 31.01.2008, more than five years before the 2013 Act commenced. Since the compensation was not paid to the landowners nor deposited in the court, the acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2). 4. Applicability of Section 114 of the 2013 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897: The Corporation argued that the acquisition proceedings were concluded under the 1894 Act and should not be affected by the 2013 Act, citing Section 114(2) of the 2013 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act overrides Section 114(2) and creates a legal fiction that deems the proceedings to have lapsed if the conditions are met. The applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is subject to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, thus nullifying the Corporation's contention. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to the non-payment of compensation to the landowners or its deposit in the court. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the acquisition proceedings were deemed invalid. The Court did not find it necessary to address the merits of the High Court's judgment given the lapse of the acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act.
|
