INTRODUCTION
A three judge bench comprising of
Justice R.M. Lodha, Justice Madan B. Lokur, and Justice Kurian Joseph of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (hereafter referred to as “the SC”) while interpreting section 24(2) – (specifically true
meaning of the expression “compensation has not been paid”) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as “the 2013 Act”) which came into effect on January 01, 2014 have held
as under:
We are of the view, that for the
purposes of Section 24(2), the compensation shall be regarded as “paid” if the compensation
has been offered to the person interested and such compensation has been
deposited in the court where reference under Section 18 can be made on happening
of any of the contingencies contemplated under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act.
In other words, the compensation may be said to have been “paid” within the
meaning of Section 24(2) when the Collector (or for that matter Land
Acquisition Officer) has discharged his obligation and deposited the amount of compensation
in court and made that amount available to the interested person to be dealt
with as provided in Sections 32 and 33.
BRIEF FACTS
The Municipal Commissioner, Pune
(hereafter referred to as “the Commissioner”)
Municipal Corporation (hereafter referred to as “PMC”) made a proposal on August 06, 2002 for acquisition of lands
admeasuring 43.94 acres (hereafter referred to as “the said land”) for development of “Forest Garden”, the same was duly
approved by the Standing Committee and thereafter sent to the Collector, Pune.
The Collector sanctioned the
proposal and on February 20, 2003 and forwarded the same to Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Pune for further action.
The notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as “the 1894 Act”) was published in the
official gazette on September 30, 2004 and pursuant to the said publication, notices
under Section 4(1) of the 1984 act were served upon the landowners / interested
persons.
Thereafter the declaration under
Section 6 of the 1984 act was published in the official gazette on December 26,
2005 and the same was also published at the site and on the notice board of the
Office of Talaltti on February 02, 2006.
Following the notices under
Section 9 of the 1984 act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer on January 31,
2008 made the award to acquire the land under Section 11 of the 1894 Act.
RELEVANT SECTIONS
Section 24 of the 2013 Act –
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(a) Where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) Where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has
been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holding has not
been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified
in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land
Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
Section 31 of 1894 Act – Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court
(1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section.
(2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 would be submitted:
There is amendment in Maharashtra
– Nagpur City in Section 31 whereby in Sub Section (1) after the words
compensation and in Sub Section (2), after the words, “the amount of
compensation”, the words “and costs if any” have been inserted.
LEGAL ISSUES
Whether the said acquisition
shall be deemed lapsed because the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act is made
more than five years earlier to the commencement of 2013 Act?
Whether 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?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
The landowners argued that by
virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the said acquisition shall be deemed
to have been lapsed because the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act is made
more than five years prior to the commencement of 2013 Act and no compensation
has been paid to the owners nor the amount of compensation has been deposited
in the court by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
PMC on the other hand argued that
the award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on January 31, 2008 strictly
in terms of 1894 Act and on the very day the landowners were informed about the
quantum of compensation for their respective lands.
Notices were also issued to the landowners
to reach the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and receive the
amount of compensation and since they neither received the compensation nor made
any request to make a reference to the District Court under Section 18, the
compensation amounting to Rupees Twenty seven crores (INR. 27,00,00,000.00/-) was
deposited in the government treasury.
PMC humbly submitted
that there was no default on the part of the Special Land Acquisition Officer
or the government and, hence, the acquisition proceedings have not lapsed.
Further PMC also relied upon
Section 114 of the 2013 Act and it is argued that the concluded land acquisition
proceedings are not at all affected by Section 24(2) and the only right that survives
for the landowners is to receive the compensation.
ANALYSIS OF PAST PRECEDENT
Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor; [A.I.R. 1936 Privy Council 253(2)]
The Privy Council while
discussing the powers of the state have held that 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.
Ivo Agnelo Santimano Fernandes and Others v. State of Goa and Another; [(2011) 11 SCC 506]
The SC while deciding the deposit
of compensation by the state while relying upon the earlier decision in Prem
Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd.; [(1996) 2 SCC 71] has
held that the deposit of the amount of 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.
DECISION OF THE COURT
The SC while taking note of the admitted
position that award was made on January 31, 2008 and notices to receive the
compensation were issued to the landowners and upon their failure to receive
the compensation, the amount of Rupees Twenty seven crores (INR. 27,00,00,000.00/-)
was deposited in the government treasury observed that - "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.
CONCLUSION
The SC has once again come to the
rescue of the common man by checking the abuse of power by the officers of the state
and their failure to follow standard procedure as provided for under the
relevant legislation. This decision by the SC will ensure that the state and
its officers irresponsible conduct is taken into account and they be not
allowed to reap windfall gains by circumventing or not strictly following the provided
procedure.
Interpretation accorded to
Section 24 of the 2013 act is welcome and will go a long way in standardizing the
procedure / process relating to land acquisition in the country and also ensure
that the procedure for acquisition of land as provided for in the 2013 act is
rightfully followed both in letter and spirit.
No comments:
Post a Comment