1 All of these Appeals were admitted before the commencement of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. After commencement thereof, the
Appellants changed the tack of their challenge – originally framed under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - and impugned the acquisition proceedings in toto,
by evoking the deemed lapse of proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act. Any determination under this provision must proceed sequentially. First,
the factum of an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
must be clearly established. The said Award must predate the commencement
of the Act, i.e., 01.01.2014., by at least five years (or more), ie., the Award must
have been passed on or before 01.01.2009. This having been established, if
possession is found to not have been taken, or compensation not paid, then the
proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the appropriate
Government, if it so chooses, may reinitiate acquisition proceedings in respect
of the same land, but under the 2013 Act’s regime.
2 Each and every deeming operation under Section 24(2) requires
unambiguously and unvaryingly that a factual conclusion be drawn about the
passing of the Award under Section 11, of the 1894 Act, on or before
01.01.2009; further, the absence of compensation having been paid or the JUDGMENT
absence of possession having been taken by the acquirer, either of these, must
be a proven point of fact, as a threshold requirement attracting the lapse.
3 From the record, these Appeals do not unambiguously answer these
indispensable queries, which inarguably must precede any declaration of lapse
of acquisition under Section 24(2). Each of these Appeals must factually
satisfy this Court on the ingredients of Section 24(2), before this Court may pass
a declaration in recognition of the statutory lapse of acquisition.
4 This Court has in a number of decisions including Pune Municipal
Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183, Union of
India vs. Shiv Raj (2014) 6 SCC 564 and Bimla Devi vs. State of Haryana
(2014) 6 SCC 583, clarified the manner in which the new provision is to be
interpreted viz., that the acquisition lapses.
5 It has been contended in other Appeals before this Court that the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Settlement Ordinance, 2014, issued on 31st December, 2014, clarifies that if
possession of the acquired land has not been taken owing to interim Orders
passed in this regard the acquisition may be protected and insulated from the
purpose and intendment of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. This Court has now
clarified in Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4283 of 2011 decided onJUDGMENT12.01.2015] that the Ordinance shall have prospective
operation only. This Court therein held as under:
“The right conferred to the land holders/owners of the
acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is the statutory right
and, therefore, the said right cannot be taken away by an Ordinance
by inserting proviso to the abovesaid sub-Section without giving
retrospective effect to the same.”
The legal position has been subsequently reiterated by this Court in Arvind
Bansal v. State of Haryana (Civil Appeal Nos.417-418 of 2015 decided on
13.01.2015) and Karnail Kaur v. State of Punjab [Civil Appeal No. 7424 of
2013 decided on 22.01.2015]. We are in respectful agreement with all these
decisions. In the event that there is no ambiguity that (a) the Award is over five
years old and (b) that compensation has not been paid or (c) that possession of
the land has not been taken, the acquisition is liable to be quashed. In Rajiv
Chowdhrie HUF v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No.8786 of 2013, decided on
06.02.2015], noting that the physical possession of the land had not been taken
by the Respondents, nor compensation paid by the Respondents to the
Appellant in respect whereof the Award was passed on 6.08.2007, the
acquisition proceedings had been declared as having lapsed. The same position
was arrived at in Rajiv Chowdhrie HUF v. Union of India in Civil Appeal
No.8785 of 2013 decided on 10.12.2014 by a different Bench of this Court.
5 In all these Appeals, the submission of the land owners is that either
possession is still with them, or compensation has not been tendered by the State. Consequently, the land owners propose to initiate proceedings founded on Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the 2013 Act").
6 Having heard all the learned counsel, we are persuaded to dispose of
these proceedings, without entering on the merits, by granting liberty to the land
owners before us to pray for the revival of the Appeals in the event that Orders
under Section 24 of the 2013 Act are adverse to their interest. We, therefore,
permit the land owners to initiate appropriate proceedings in the proper
forum/court, seeking the benefit of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, within eight
weeks from today. We clarify that, in the event that any land owners have
already approached the High Court concerned, their plea under Section 24 of
the 2013 Act shall be decided on merits.
7 It is in these circumstances that all these Appeals are disposed of with
liberty to the parties to revive these Appeals in the event that the Orders under
Section 24 of the 2013 Act are seen as adverse to their interest. Interim
protection, if already granted, shall continue for a period of 90 days from today.
8 It is further clarified that the parties desirous of reviving the Appeal must
approach this Court within 90 days of the passing of the High Court's orders.
9 The Appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and
directions.
[PRAFULLA C. PANT] New Delhi; February 26 , 2015.