SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 640

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Deepak Aggarwal and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.............of 2022, SLP (C) Nos. 16631-16632 of 2018, C.A. Nos............./2022, SLP (C) Nos. 13883, 16585, 16569, 16612, 16628, 26059, 28961, 28941, 28959, 28949, 13884, 16583, 16580, 16613, 16574, 16562, 16564, 16607, 16604, 18939, 16595, 16560, 16582, 16573, 16591, 16587, 16558, 16610, 16614, 16570, 16567, 22288, 18942, 16629, 28962, 28954, 28940, 28939, 28956, 28953, 28951, 28948, 28952, 18950, 19705, 16626, 16622, 16621, 18947, 16620, 18973, 18969, 19703, 18945, 18968, 18962, 19697, 18957, 18958, 18960, 18964, 19706, 18949, 18941, 22291, 24221, 24218, 24227, 24224, 26058, 28946, 18943, 18938, 18948, 18946, 23433-23444, 19711, 22292, 22294, 22295, 22290, 22298, 23446, 23445 of 2018, C.A. Nos............./2022, SLP (C) Nos. 2886, 7504, 9194, 14181, 15674, 2880, 2881-2883, 2988-2990, 2884, 2877, 2878, 2885, 2887, 2879, 2888-2890, 3775-3778, 3782, 3780, 3786, 3788, 6496, 5149, 5148, 7496-7498, 6729, 7469, 7505, 7506, 6732, 7471, 6735, 7499, 7909, 7912, 5939, 7490, 7501, 7466, 7715, 7915, 7916, 7907, 7908, 8380, 7910, 7911, 7906, 7914, 7917, 9186-9187, 9188, 8381, 9197, 9180, 9191, 8600, 8379, 10001, 10000, 9176, 9189, 10002, 10604, 10003, 9196, 10995, 9202, 10063, 14490, 14551, 14533, 14466, 17439, 16415, 14556, 14594, 19500, 14271, 16423, 17933-17934, 19012, 24752, 14253/2020 22217, 14262, 23354, 23357, 20183, 24751, 24754, 23704, 27500 of 2019, C.A. No............./2022, SLP (C) No. 15601 of 2020, C.A. No............./2022, SLP (C) No. 113 of 2022, C.A. Nos............./2022, SLP (C) Nos............./2022, SLP (C) D. Nos. 32828, 33145, 37195, 31330, 31858, 32821, 33273, 33276 of 2018, C.A. No............./2022, SLP (C) No............./2022, SLP (C) D. No. 8299, 9289, 10499, 21828, 22667, 26930, 26936 of 2019, C.A. No............./2022, SLP (C) No............./2022, SLP (C) D. No. 171, 410, 524, 530, 11217, 11218, 11219, 11220, 11221, 11222, 11379, 22557, 23618, 25048 of 2020
Decided On : 28-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Deepali, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. B.K. Satija, AAG Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR Mr. Indranil Chandra, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Initiation of land acquisition proceedings – For the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of 2013 Act, proceedings under L.A. Act shall be treated as initiated on publication of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of L.A. Act.

Headnote:

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(1) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 6 – Initiation of land acquisition proceedings – For the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of 2013 Act, proceedings under L.A. Act shall be treated as initiated on publication of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of L.A. Act – When Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of 2013 Act is applicable, proceedings shall continue as per L.A. Act – However, only for determination of compensation amount, provisions of 2013 Act shall be applied – It would not be in public interest to allow such proceedings to lapse or allow authorities to follow procedures during such period according to their sweet will – A uniform procedure has to be followed in respect of such proceedings – Acquisitions initiated for public purposes should go on in a fair and transparent manner with a view to achieve intent and purport of 2013 Act and at the same time, persons affected shall have definite idea about manner in which procedures would be conducted. (Paras 32 and 34)

Facts of the case:

Common issue in all these cases, pertain to meaning and interpretation of the word “initiated” employed in Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with reference to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Findings of Court:

Other issues are also involved in the captioned appeals besides the common questions and issues which we have answered in this judgment. Hence taking note of involvement of other legal and factual issues in these appeals shall be listed before appropriate Bench for disposal on their own merits.

Result : Reference answered. Appeals to be listed before appropriate Bench for disposal on their own merits.

JUDGMENT :

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Overlapping issues are involved in this bunch of cases. The point of polemics, which is common in all these cases, pertain to the meaning and interpretation of the word “initiated” employed in Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity “the 2013 Act”) with reference to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the L.A. Act”). Going by the appellants in the appeals arising from SLP (C) Nos. 16631-16632 of 2018, including the State of Haryana, the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation and the appellants or respondents in certain other appeals sailing along with them (hereinafter referred to as Party ‘A’) for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, issuance and publication of a Notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894 alone would amount to initiation of acquisition proceedings thereunder. Per contra, the contesting parties, viz. the respondents therein and appellants in other appeals who hold the contra view, (hereinafter referred to as Party ‘B’) would contend that it is the declaration that the land is required for a public purpose under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act that would mark the point of initiation of acquisition proceedings thereunder. To buttress the respective contentions, the parties rely on various decisions of this Court as also of different High Courts. We may hasten to add that the decisions of various High Courts cited before us would also reflect the cleavage in opinion among the High Courts on this issue.

Legal background

3. The legal background from which the stated question stems may be encapsulated thus:

    The L.A. Act was a general law relating to acquisition of land for public purposes and also for companies, and for determination of amount of compensation to be made to the owner/holder of the property concerned upon acquisition. Inadequacy of the provisions in the L.A. Act in addressing various issues such as rehabilitation and resettlement of affected parties of such acquisition led to the enactment of the 2013 Act and the consequent repeal of the L.A. Act. However, Section 114 of the 2013 Act carries provisions not only for repeal but also for saving the L.A. Act to certain extent in given circumstances, from the prejudicial effect of repeal under sub-section (1) thereof, in the manner provided specifically in the 2013 Act. Section 114 of the 2013 Act reads thus:

    “Repeal and Saving:

    (1) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) is hereby repealed.

    (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act the repeal under sub-section (1) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeals.”

    When an enactment is repealed, normally some of its provisions are saved by a repealing provision. The extent and scope of such provisions under the repealed Act would depend upon the ‘Repeal and Saving’ provision under the repealing Act.

4. Thus, as per sub-section (1) of Section 114 of the 2013 Act, the L.A. Act was repealed and at the same time, sub-Section (2) thereof carries a saving clause. As per sub-Section (2) thereof, the repeal under sub-Section (1) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, with respect to the effect of repeals. Hence, to know the actual impact of the saving clause it is only proper and profitable to refer to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act before entering into the task of interpretation of the provisions under the L.A. Act which remains saved for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act and the scope of further operation of such provisions.

5. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act 10 of 1897) deals with the effect of repeals. It reads thus:

    “S.6 Effect of repeal - Where this Act, or any [

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top