2014 Supreme(SC) 54
R.M.LODHA, MADAN B.LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH
Pune Municipal Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki – Respondent
Judgement Key Points
- Judgment overruled: This judgment has been overruled by a subsequent Supreme Court decision.
- Core issue: Interpretation of the expression "compensation has not been paid" in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act), in relation to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act). [1000537360001][1000537360023]
- Factual background: Proposal for acquisition of 43.94 acres for "Forest Garden" development approved in 2002; Section 4 notification in 2004; Section 6 declaration in 2005; award under Section 11 made on 31.01.2008. Landowners challenged proceedings; High Court quashed acquisition on various grounds. Compensation not paid to landowners; Rs.27 crores deposited in government treasury. [1000537360003] (!) [1000537360004][1000537360006]
- Landowners' argument: Award made more than five years before 2013 Act commencement (01.01.2014); no payment or court deposit; proceedings lapse under Section 24(2). [1000537360005]
- Authority's argument: Compensation offered via notices; deposited in treasury due to non-receipt; no default; Section 114(2) saves concluded proceedings. [1000537360006]
- Section 24(1) of 2013 Act: Overrides other provisions; no award = 2013 Act compensation applies; award made = proceedings continue under 1894 Act. (!) (!) (!) [1000537360009]
- Section 24(2) of 2013 Act: Overrides Section 24(1); if award ≥5 years prior to 2013 Act and (i) no physical possession or (ii) compensation not paid, proceedings lapse; fresh acquisition possible under 2013 Act. Proviso for majority non-deposit. (!) (!) [1000537360010]
- Section 31 of 1894 Act: Collector must tender payment post-award; if contingencies (non-consent, incompetence, dispute), deposit in court for Section 18 reference. (!) (!) (!) [1000537360011][1000537360013][1000537360014]
- Meaning of "paid" in Section 24(2): Not mere tender/offer; not requiring actual receipt by landowners. "Paid" when Collector deposits in court per Section 31(2) contingencies, making funds available under Sections 32-33. Literal construction avoided to respect 1894 Act procedure. [1000537360016] (!)
- Strict compliance for expropriatory laws: 1894 Act procedures (Sections 31-34) mandatory; must follow prescribed mode. [1000537360017]
- Deposit in treasury insufficient: Not equivalent to payment or court deposit; proceedings lapse where award >5 years old, no possession/payment/court deposit. [1000537360018][1000537360019]
- Section 114(2) of 2013 Act: Repeal subject to 2013 Act provisions; Section 24(2) legal fiction prevails over General Clauses Act Section 6; no savings for lapsed proceedings. [1000537360020]
- Outcome: Appeals dismissed; acquisition proceedings deemed lapsed under Section 24(2). No need to review High Court merits. [1000537360019][1000537360021][1000537360022]
Judgment :-
R.M. Lodha, J.
Delay condoned in S.L.P. (C) Nos.15847-15855 of 2010. Leave granted.
2. In these 18 appeals, by special leave, it is argued on behalf of the respondents-landowners that in view of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘2013 Act’) which has come into effect on 01.01.2014, the subject land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘1894 Act’) have lapsed. The question for decision relates to true meaning of the expression:
“compensation has not been paid” occurring in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
3. It may not be necessary at all to go into the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment, if the subject land acquisition proceedings are held to have lapsed. We, therefore, deal with this aspect first.
4. The brief facts necessary for consideration of the above question are these. On 06.08.2002, the proposal of the Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation (for short, “Corporation”) duly approved by the Standing Committee for acquisition of lands admeasuring 43.94 acres for development of “Forest Garden” was
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
