IMPORTANT POINTS
The word ‘paid’ in section 24 of the Act of 2013 has the same meaning as ‘tender of payment’ in section 31(1) of the Act of 1894.
The normal mode of taking physical possession under the land acquisition cases is drawing of Panchnama.
The provisions of section 24 of the Act of 2013, do not revive barred or stale claims such claims cannot be entertained.
When the authorities have been disabled to act under section 24(2) due to the final or interim order of a court or otherwise, such period has to be excluded from the period of five years as provided in section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit is applicable including the other common law principles for determining the questions under section 24 of the Act of 2013.

Headnote:(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 31(2) r/w Rule 10, Land Acquisition (Bihar and Orissa) Rules – Compensation amount to be tendered/paid to the person entitled u/s 31(1) – To be deposited in reference court only in exigencies mentioned in section 31(2) – If reference is not sought, amount is to be deposited in treasury. (Para 9)
       (2) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Expression ‘deposited in account’ – Non-use of ‘bank account’ – Would only mean deposit in treasury or with the Land Acquisition collector for payment – No contemplation of deposit in ‘court’. (Para 21, 22)
       (3) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) and Proviso – Main section providing for lapsing of acquisition on non-payment of compensation – Expression used being "compensation has not been paid" – Proviso using word ‘deposited’ – Operating in a different field – In case of large number of beneficiaries non-deposit of compensation in their account will not lapse the acquisition – It will simply entitle them to determination of compensation under Act 2013 – Proviso not attracted where compensation has been paid – Proviso not referring to deposit in court – Refers to a payment deposited with LAO or in treasury. (Para 25, 26)
       (4) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) and 77, section 31, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Terms ‘paid’ and ‘tender’ – Expression “paid” in section 24(2) – Cannot include in it the deposit to be made in Court under section 31(2) – Section 31 of Act 1894 and section 77 of act 2013 – Expression ‘tender payment’ – Obligation to pay u/s 31 completes on refusal of tender and tantamount to making payment – Paid in section 24(2) must be understood in this sense. (Para 27, 28)
       (5) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24 and section 31, Land acquisition Act, 1894 – Expression ‘paid’ in section 24 – Different from expression ‘deposit’ under the proviso – ‘Deposit’ included in ‘paid’ in main section – Same is the position in sections 31(1) and (2). (Para 31)
       (6) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 31 – Tender – Offer of money in satisfaction of a debt, by producing and showing the amount to a creditor or party claiming and expressing verbally, willingness to pay it – In case tender is refused, tendering party cannot be held defaulter and no liability will ensue – Formal offer duly made by one party to another especially an offer of money in discharge of liability fulfills the terms of law and of liability – Tendering and making available money unconditionally in discharge of a liability amounts to ‘paid’ – Actual receipt not contemplated – Paid need not be construed literally – a (Para 32, 36, 37, 38, 39)
       AIR 1962 SC 1500; AIR 1965 SC 1503; (1968) 1 PLJR 94 (SC); (1969) 2 SCC 316; (1971) 1 SCC 337 – Relied upon
       (7) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Expression “compensation has not been paid” – Legislature consciously omitting word “deposited” in the expression – Not for court to add or subtract any word thereto – A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum – ‘Deposited’ used in proviso – Both carrying different consequences – Deposit made directly in court without tendering to the party – Neither tender nor payment – It is simply discharge of Collector’s liability of making payment of interest, and no more. (Para 41, 42, 43)
       (1846) 6 Moore PC 1; (1948) 2 AER 825; AIR 1953 SC 148; AIR 1991 SC 772; (1998) 3 SCC 234; (2010) 10 SCC 744; (1981) 3 SCC 531; AIR 2009 SC 187; (2004) 5 SCC 518; (2007) 6 SCC 429; AIR 1959 SC 459; AIR 1982 SC 149; (2001) 7 SCC 71; AIR 1990 SC 933; AIR 1921 PC 184; (2002) 3 SCC 533 – Referred
       (8) Interpretation of statute – Harmonious construction – Inconsistency and repugnancy should be avoided and harmonious construction should be adopted – Whole statute should be construed as a consistent enactment. (Para 44)
       AIR 1954 SC 202; AIR 1997 SC 1006; (2002) 2 SCC 67; (2003) 3 SCC 57 – Relied upon
       (9) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – No ambiguity in language of section 24 – Nothing can be added or subtracted – No warrant of including the word ‘deposit’ in expression ‘payment’ – Tendering payment would not include deposit in court – Two words or expressions used in the same provision cannot be construed in the same sense – “Paid to the landowners" and "deposited in the court" used in section 24 of Act 2013 and section 31 of Land acquisition Act, 1894 – Both carry different meanings – Have to be interpreted as used in respective contexts. (Para 48, 50, 51)
       (1987) 1 SCC 606; AIR 2002 SC 1351; AIR 1956 SC 35; (1989) 1 SCC 760 – Relied upon
       (2000) 2 All ER 109; 1891 QB 156; (2003) 4 SCC 305; 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 493; (2003) 5 SCC 622; (2010) 5 SCC 196; (2002) 4 SCC 297; AIR 1999 SC 1867; (2001) 3 SCC 609; AIR 1964 SC 1687 – Referred
       (10) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24 – Expression “possession of the land has not been taken” – Legislative intent not to brook any lethargy on part of authorities to take possession for five years or more – ‘Timely’ would mean without delay on the part of authorities, not delay due to dilatory tactics and conduct of land owners/interested persons. (Para 52, 53)
       (11) Land acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 31(2) – Where tender of compensation is refused and a reference is sought – Deposit of compensation amount in court where reference is sought would be permissible – In cases where tender is refused but no reference is sought, deposit in treasury would be valid – Only, it could attract higher interest u/s 34 – If however the tender has not been possible in certain exigencies u/s 31(2), 32 or 33 it would attract interest not more than 15%. (Para 60)
       (12) Land Acquisition Rules – Payment to majority of land holders – Deposit of amount in account of beneficiaries – Proviso to section 24(2), Act, 2013 – Not envisaging any exigency provided in section 31(2), Land acquisition Act, 1894 – Deposit in separate accounts of the beneficiaries opened in the treasury fully complies requirement of section 24(2) – Article 283, Constitution of India. (Para 62, 63)
       (13) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24, 77 and 80 r/w section 31 and 34, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Refusal of tender – Direct refusal – Alternatively, no direct refusal but initiation of litigation challenging acquisition and seeking interim stay one after another – Amounts to refusal by conduct – Such land holders bound to inform Land Acquisition Collector about result of litigation either way – If they succeed acquisition loses – If they lose, they should seek payment of compensation – In any case authorities cannot keep the amount with them – Deposit in treasury has all along been held valid – Misuse of law – If deposit in court is made a requirement u/s 24, most acquisition will lapse – Acquisition cannot be invalidated even of land holder not responsible for delay – Payment at rates as provided under Act 2013 not possible for land acquired long back – However, if payment is delayed by authorities for no good reason, consequences u/s 24 would follow. (Para 64, 65, 66, 67)
       (2016) 16 SCC 258 – Relied upon
       (14) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 31 and 34 – Prejudice – Every infraction of law would not vitiate the act unless the aggrieved party is prejudiced by it – Therefore even if amount of compensation is deposited in the treasury instead of in the reference court, acquisition will not be vitiated and land holder will be entitled to interest u/s 34 unless he shows to have been prejudiced by deposit in treasury. (Para 69)
       (1969) 3 SCC 392; (1980) 3 SCC 304; (1998) 6 SCC 554; AIR 1956 SC 116; (2010) 10 SCC 259; AIR 2012 SC 364 (2012) 9 SCC 650 – Relied upon
       (15) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 31, 32 and 34 r/w section 24, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Compensation amount need not invariably be tendered – It can be deposited in court in exigencies mentioned in sub-section (2) – Deposit in treasury is permissible mode of deposit under section 31(1) – Further, the sub-section does not cover all exigencies – Does not require deposit in court invariably – Deposit in reference court required only in exigencies of section 31(2) read with 32 and as provided in rules – Tender cannot be equated with deposit in court under section 31(2) or 24(2) of Act, 2013 – In case of non-payment only consequence will be payment of interest u/s 34 from the date of possession. (Para 71, 75, 76)
       (2016) 16 SCC 258; AIR 1990 SC 2033; (1995) 6 SCC 240; (1996) 8 SCC 8; (1997) 10 SCC 77; SLP [C] No. 26281/2017 – Relied upon
       AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) – Referred
       (16) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 16 and section 24, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Vesting of land in State – Complete and absolute on award being passed, possession being taken, compensation being offered but refused – In such conditions no divesting is contemplated u/s 24 and it will not apply – Vesting cannot be got invalidated merely by obtaining interim order or keeping the litigation pending or filing it afresh that too by way of stale and belated claim after coming into force of Act 2013 – Acquisition can be deemed lapsed only on possession not being taken or award not being passed or compensation not being paid as provided in section 24(2). (Para 79, 82)
       1996 (7) JT 118; (1996) 11 SCC 698; (1996) 1 SCC 311; (1996) 3 SCC 99; AIR 1957 SC 344; (1996) 9 SCC 516; (2011) 6 SCC 570 – Relied upon
       (17) Interpretation of statute – Effect of repeal – Accrued rights – Cannot be taken away by repealing statutory provisions – Section 6, General Clauses Act – Section 24, Proviso, Act, 2013 – Land vested in State – Cannot be got divested by obtaining interim orders under guise of prima facie case anyhow or somehow. (Para 83, 84, 85)
       (18) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Taking possession – Mode of drawing Panchnama – A valid and accepted mode. (Para 86)
       (1976) 1 SCC 700; (1996) 8 SCC 259; (2011) 5 SCC 394; (1996) 7 SCC 269; (1996) 4 SCC 212; (2005) 12 SCC 489; (2009) 10 SCC 501; (2010) 13 SCC 158; (2015) 17 SCC 1 – Relied upon
       AIR 2011 SC 1989 – Distinguished
       (2012) 1 SCC 792; (2015) 4 SCC 325 – Not correct law
       (19) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24 – Stale claims of possession not been taken – Cannot be entertained – Section 24 cannot help those who first deliberately refuse to accept compensation, and then indulge in litigation and dilatory tactics, for decades together. (Para 97, 98, 99, 100)
       SLP (C) No. 26281/2017; (2010) 14 SCC 309; (2017) 6 SCC 787; (2007) 9 SCC 109; (2005) 8 SCC 709 – Relied upon
       (20) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Inclusion or exclusion of period of interim order by a court – Compensation dependent and subject to possession – Compensation cannot become due and payable unless possession is taken – Thus when possession is stayed by interim orders of court there would be no question of compensation – Everything remains in abeyance till interim order is vacated. (Para 104, 106, 107)
       (1997) 5 SCC 421; (2010) 4 SCC 17; (1990) 1 SCC 593; (1988) 4 SCC 284; (2001) 8 SCC 24; AIR 1959 SC 433; (2014) 2 SCC 62 – Relied upon
       (2014) 6 SCC 564 – Referred
       (21) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24 – Alleged casus omissus – Section 19(7), 69(2) referred – Omission of exclusion of period of stay – Held, not a case of casus omissus – Section 24 does not exclude principles of common law – It only excludes those principles in respect to which provision has been made in the statute or the applicability is ousted by implication – Provision of exclusion of period of stay in other provisions not relevant. (Para 109, 114, 115)
       218 FR 547; (1990) 1 SCC 277; (2013) 10 SCC 746; (2009) 2 SCC 121; (1972) 2 SCC 560 – Referred
       (2002) 3 SCC 533 – Distinguished
       (22) Land Acquisition – Doctrine of impossibility – Lax non cogit ad impossibilia – Impossibilium nullaobligatio est – Nemo Tenetur ad Impossibilia – Officials becoming helpless in making payment of compensation by refusal of land owners directly and indulging in litigation – Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria i.e. ‘No man can take advantage of his own wrong’ – A “tender” of the amount payable, made and refused directly or conduct, operates as a bar upon any claim for damages and interest. (Para 126, 127)
       (1999) 8 SCC 266; (2000) 4 SCC 342; (2002) 5 SCC 54; (2005) 1 SCC 191; (1974) 2 SCC 33; AIR 2005 SC 2622 – Referred
       (23) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24 – Actus curiae neminem gravabit – Pendency of matter in court – Interim orders – No party can take advantage of – Commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet – No party can take advantage of his own wrong – Litigation to cause delay and take advantage of the delay for getting acquisition declared lapsed – Challenge to acquisition initially admitted being prima facie but finally found meritless – Advantage shall enure to opposite party – Litigants cannot be protected by such delays – In case of continued possession of land owner or non-payment of compensation to due to court order – Section 24(2) cannot be invoked. (Para 129, 130, 134, 135, 137)
       AIR 1961 SC 1353; (1998) 3 SCC 376; (2005) 8 SCC 423; (1992) 2 SCC 620; (1980) 2 SCC 191; (1995) 3 SCC 33; (2010) 1 SCC 417; (2004) 2 SCC 783; AIR 1988 SC 1531; (2014) 2 SCC 62; (2006) 6 SCC 1 – Relied upon
       (1976) 1 SCC 766; (2017) SCC Online SC 258 – Distinguished
       (24) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Principle of restitution – If interim order is vacated, court is duty bound do away its effects by resorting to restitution – Unjust enrichment must be checked. (Para 139, 141)
       (2003) 8 SCC 648; (2012) 3 SCC 522; (2012) 6 SCC 430; Civil Appeal Nos. 3376-3377 of 2000 – Relied upon
       (2011) 8 SCC 161 – Referred
       (25) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 114 r/w section 6, General Clauses Act – Repeal of Land acquisition Act, 1894 – In absence of different legislative intention, repeal shall not revive anything not in force – Will not affect any previous operation of repealed provisions – Held, pending litigations should be decided on basis of Act 1894 except as provided specifically in Act of 2013. (Para 144)
       (26) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24 – Stale claims cannot be entertained – However, if award is not passed at the time of Act, 2013 coming into force, section 24(1)(a) would come into play – Acquisition proceedings may be allowed to continue subject to award being passed and compensation determined under Act, 2013. (Para 145)
       (2016) 12 SCC 504 – Relied upon
       (2014) 3 SCC 183; (2011) 11 SCC 506; (1996) 2 SCC 71; (2014) 6 SCC 586; (2014) 6 SCC 583; (2014) 6 SCC 564; (2015) 3 SCC 327; (2015) 3 SCC 206; (2015) 8 SCC 544; (2016) 15 SCC 464; (2016) 16 SCC 258; (2016) 14 SCC 746; (2015) 3 SCC 341 – Distinguished
       (27) Interpretation of judgment – Per incuriam – Per ignoratium – Are the decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some statutory provision or authority binding on the Court concerned – Pune Municipal Corporation, (2014) 3 SCC 183 held per incuriam binding decisions, i.e., AIR 1962 SC 1500, AIR 1965 SC 1503, (1968) 1 PLJR 94 (SC), (1969) 2 SCC 316, AIR 1990 SC 2033, (1995) 6 SCC 240 and (1996) 8 SCC 8; statutory provisions of sections 77 and 80 relating to payment and deposit under Act of 2013; the maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria; and past practice for more than a century, of deposit in treasury, as per rules/ orders and decisions; which were not placed before the Court (Para 146, 147, 151, 152)
       (1975) 2 SCC 232; (1988) 2 SCC 602; (1991) 4 SCC 139; (1989) 1 SCC 101; AIR 2011 SC 1989 – Relied upon
       (28) Administration of justice – Judicial discipline – Referring a case to larger Bench – Decision of coordinate Bench or larger Benches are binding on the Bench – So a Bench cannot comment on decision of coordinate Bench or larger Benches – However, if a bench has a different view, it mus refer the case to larger Bench. (Para 148)
       Facts of the case:
       Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 has been doubted in this case. The main issue is interpretation of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
       Finding of the Court:
       The word ‘paid’ in section 24 of the Act of 2013 has the same meaning as ‘tender of payment’ in section 31(1) of the Act of 1894.
       The normal mode of taking physical possession under the land acquisition cases is drawing of Panchnama.
       The provisions of section 24 of the Act of 2013, do not revive barred or stale claims such claims cannot be entertained.
       When the authorities have been disabled to act under section 24(2) due to the final or interim order of a court or otherwise, such period has to be excluded from the period of five years as provided in section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
       The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit is applicable including the other common law principles for determining the questions under section 24 of the Act of 2013.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment discusses the meaning of "paid" vs "tender" in section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and "paid" vs "deposited" under the 1894 Act, and whether non-deposit in court causes lapse of acquisition (Pune/Delhi cases) (!) (!) (!) - It addresses mode of taking possession (Panchnama) as a valid mode of possession under Section 24(2) and related case law (Banda Development Authority, Balaji Nagar, etc.) (!) (!) (!) - It resolves whether Section 24(2) of Act 2013 revives stale or barred claims and excludes interim-stay periods via actus curiae neminem gravabit/restoration principles; limits on reviving old acquisitions; and the principle of restitution to cure injustices from interim orders (!) (!) (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

JUDGMENT :

Arun Mishra, J.

1. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) through LRs. & Others [C.A No.20982 of 2017] correctness of the decision of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [2014 (3) SCC 183] has been doubted. The main issue is interpretation of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’) and section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’).

2. In Yogesh Neema & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors. [S.L.P. [C] No.10742 of 2008] vide order of 12.1.2016, observing that other question, that may arise undoubtedly to be considered question Nos. IV and V have been referred.

Following questions arises for consideration:

I. What is the meaning of the expression ‘paid'/ ‘tender' in Section 24 of the Act of 2013 and section 31 of the Act of 1894? Whether non-deposit of compensation in court under section 31(2) of the Act of 1894 results into a lapse of acquisition under section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. What are the consequences of non-deposit in Court especially when compensation has been tendered and refused under section 31(1) of the Act of 1894 and section 24(2) of the Act of 2013? Whether such persons after refusal can take advantage of their wrong/conduct?

II. Mode of taking physical possession as contemplated under section 24(2) of the Act of 1894.

III. Whether section 24 of Act of 2013 revives barred and stale claims?

IV. Whether the conscious omission referred to in paragraph 11 of the judgment in Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2015) 3 SCC 353] makes any substantial difference to the legal position with regard to the exclusion or inclusion of the period covered by an interim order of the Court for the purpose of determination of the applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?

V. Whether the principle of “actus curiae neminem gravabit”, namely act of the Court should not prejudice any parties would be applicable in the present case to exclude the period covered by an interim order for the purpose of determining the question with regard to taking of possession as contemplated in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?

In Re: Question No.1

3. Question that has been referred in as to meaning of the expression ‘paid' used in section 24 of Act of 2013 and expression ‘tender' used in section 31(1) of Act of 1894 when deposit under section 31(2) of Act of 1894 is necessary, effect of refusal to accept compensation and whether deposit in treasury is permissible and effect of non-deposit of compensation in Court.

4. In order to appreciate the various questions to be answered, it is appropriate to first consider the provisions contained in the Act of 1894 with respect to the passing of the award, together with its communication and payment; the following then is a ‘bird’s eye view’ of the same.

SCHEME OF ACT & RELEVANT PROVISIONS :

5. After notification under section 4 and declaration under section 6 have been issued under the Act of 1894, the Collector is required to proceed to pass an award under section 11. Section 12 requires the Collector to give immediate notice of the award to such persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. Section 16 deals with the power of the Collector to take possession of the land after an award has been made under section 11. It is open to the Collector to take possession of the land, which shall, thereupon, vest absolutely in the Government. Section 16 is extracted hereunder:

“16. Power to take possession – When the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances.” (emphasis supplied)

6. Section 17 deals with special powers in cases of urgency. The same authorizes the Collector to take possession before passing of the award as provided in s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 123

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Cases Referred (127)