2020 Supreme(SC) 255

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN, M.R. SHAH, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
Indore Development Authority – Petitioner
Versus
Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 19356, 19362, 19361, 19358, 19357, 19360, 19359, 19363, 6239, 19364, 19412 of 2017, 12247, 10210, 10207 of 2016, 4835 of 2015 and S.L.P. (C) Nos. 30577-30580 of 2015, 9036-9038, 9798-9799, 17088-17089, 37375, 37372, 16573-16605, 34752-34753 of 2016, 15890, 33022, 33127, 33114, of 2017, 30452 of 2018, 16051 of 2019, S.L.P. (C) CC No. 15967 of 2016, MA 1423, 1787, 1786 of 2017, 45 of 2018, Diary No. 23842 of 2018
Decided On : 06-03-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on 1.1.2014 the date of commencement of Act of 2013, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of Act of 2013.
In case the award has been passed within the window period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed.
The word 'or' used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and'. In case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then also there is no lapse.
The expression 'paid' in the main part of Section 24(2) does not include a deposit of compensation in court.
The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount.
The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).
The mode of taking possession is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum (panchnama).
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition.

Headnote:

(a) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 - Act 2013 prospective - But saves proceedings already initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before its repeal - Subject to provisions of Section 24, which begins with a non-obstante clause and overrides all other provisions of the Act of 2013. (Para 7)

(b) Interpretation of statute - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Differences -

(c) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Overview - Various departures from Land Acquisition Act, 1894 relating to Social Impact Assessment, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, etc. - Act, 2013 ensuring higher compensation and providing for rehabilitation; defining the public purpose; and making consent provisions - Adequately protecting interest of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes widening definition of affected families - Various Committees and Authorities have been constituted. (Para 92)

(d) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 - Purposive interpretation - Section 24 has to be interpreted keeping in view provisions safeguarding compensation and rehabilitation and giving meaningfull effect to legislative intent - Court can only iron out creases to clear ambiguity, not legislate - Intended benfits and acquisition at a fast track should be given full effect. (Para 93)

(e) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 r/w section 114 and section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897 - Effect of repeal of Act, 1894 - Section 24 starting with a non obstante clause - Section 24(1)(a) providing that where award has not been made under Act 1894, compensation would be determined as per Act 2013 but proceedings do not lapse - Under section 24(1)(b) where award is made, pending proceedings will continue under Act 1894 - However, in case of award passed five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013, but neither physical possession of the land taken nor the compensation paid - Proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2). (Para 95)

(f) Interpretation of statute - Two negative conditions qualified by "or" - "Or" should be read as "nor" or "and". (Para 97, 99)

(g) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Conditions for deemed lapse of proceedings - Possession has not been taken ‘or’ compensation has not been paid - Section 24(2) a penal provision to punish acquiring authority for its lethargy in not taking physical possession nor paying the compensation after making the award five years or more before - Section 24(2) starting with a non-obstante clause overrides contets in Section 24(1) - Section 24(2) starts with a non-obstante clause overriding what is contained in Section 24(1) - Section 24(2) has to be read as an exception to Section 24(1)(b). (Para 112, 113)

(h) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 16 - Land vests in Government on two contingencies - Passing of award and taking of possession. (Para 115)

(i) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 - Use of word “or” between expressions "possession of the land has not been taken" and "the compensation has not been paid" - Cannot be read disjunctively - The two conditions are unrelated and carry different consequences - They are exclusive and not alternative conditions - “Or” has to be read as “and”. (Para 123)

(j) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - An exception to applicabilty of Section 6, Genreal Clauses Act, 1879 - Saving acquisition where award has been made, but

(k) Land Acquisitio Act, 1894 - Section 48 - There cannot be any withdrawal from the land acquisition proceedings if possession has been taken. (Para 127)

(l) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013- Section 24(2) - “Or” between the two expressions - No provision for refund of the compensation once paid - But reading “or” disjunctively in case possession is not taken though compensation has been paid, acquisition would lapse but the amount o compensation cannot be recovered - Landowner would be unjustly enriched - Therefore “or” has to be read as “and”. (Para 132)

(m) Land Axquisition Act, 1894 - Section 16 - Vesting of land - Automatic on taking possession - Not dependent upon payment of compensation - Compensation has to be paid - That is why payment of higher rate of interest on compensation provided u/s 31 and also higher compensation u/s 24, Act 2013 in case of default in payment of compensation. (Para 135)

(n) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48, 17 and 34 - Once possession is taken u/s 17(1), Government cannot withdraw from acquisition u/s 48 - Not paying compensation does not invalidate possession - Also requirement of passing the award within two years u/s 11-A are not attracted - Non payment of compensation would only attract interest u/s 34. (Para 135, 136, 137)

(o) Interpretation of statute - Mandatory provision - Test - If non-compliance of the provision could render entire proceedings invalid, the provision would be mandatory - Non payment of compensation under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not render acquisition invalid - Section 31 - Provision not mandatory. (Para 140)

(p) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Legal fiction of lapsing of acquisition where possession has not been taken nor compensation has been paid - Cannot be extended to denude government of title over the land which vested after taking possession and third party rights are also created thereon - Divesting of vested land neither intended nor specifically provided - On taking possession and passing of award landowner losess title - Land cannot be de-notified u/s 48(1). (Para 142, 145, 147)

(q) Interpretation of statute - Repeal - Section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897 - Repeal followed by a fresh enactment on the same subject - Examination of Legislative intent of new Act whether differing from repealed one required - Enquiry as to whether new Act saves old rights and liabilities or whether it manifests an intention to do away with or destroy them necessitated - If new Act manifests different intentions, application of the General Clauses Act will stand excluded. (Para 149)

(r) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 and 114 r/w section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897 - Section 24(2) has retroactive operation with respect to acquisitions initiated under the Act 1894 but not completed by taking possession or paying compensation in spite of lapse of 5 years and proceedings are kept pending due to lethargy of the officials - In such event, drastic consequences as contained in Section 24(2) follows - Purposive interpretation applied - Legislative history and objectives of the Act taken into account. (Para 151, 165, 166)

(s) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24, Proviso - Whether part of section 24(1)(b) or exception carved out in section 24(2) - When "or" is read conjunctively, as held, acquisition proceedings would lapse where possession has not been taken, nor compensation has been paid as provided in section 24(2) - Therefore, held, legislature rightly placed the proviso u/s 24(2) as part thereof. (Para 171, 172)

(t) Interpretation of statute - Punctuation - Punctuation plays a vital role in interpretation - Though sometimes it can be ignored also but not generally - Punctuation is a device not for making meaning, but for making meaning plain - Full stop (.) and colon (:) - Full stop expresses deliberate intent to end a particular sentence and detach it from the next part - Colon, on the other hand, has a reference to the previous statement and enlarges the same and extends the meaning of the sentence. (Para 174, 176)

(u) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 - Proviso - Whether part of section 24(1) or section 24(2) - Section 24(1) ends with a full stop - Section 24(2) continues with a colon which is followed by the proviso - Section 24(2) is notwithstanding Section 24(1) and its proviso enlarges the scope of section 24(2) - Proviso is repugnant to provisions of section 24(1) - Held, proviso is part of section 24(2). (Para 182, 185, 187)

(v) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 - Under section 24(1)(b), the old regime (Act, 1894) prevails - Section 24(2) completely obliterates the old regime - Proviso rightly placed below section 24(2) with which it is in consonance - Changing the place of proviso under section 24(1)(b), as contended, would be rewriting the provision - Not permissible. (Para 189)

(w) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24, Proviso - Cannot nullify provision of Section 24(1)(b), but can further Section 24(2) by providing higher compensation - Held, proviso has rightly been placed below section 24(2) - Placement of the proviso, use of semi-colon at the end of section 24(2), interpretation of section 24(1)(b), repugnancy likely to be caused by shifting the proviso considered and reading the word 'or' in section 24(2) as 'nor'. (Para 197)

(x) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) r/w section 31(1), Land acquisition Act, 1894 - “Paid” and “deposited” - Section 31(1) - Concept of paid and deposit different - Condition of amount of compensation neither paid nor deposited - “Paid” cannot include "deposited" - Similarly 'tender' and ‘pay to them’ cannot include 'deposited'. (Para 198, 203, 204, 215)

(y) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) r/w section 31(2), Land acquisition Act, 1894 - Default in payment or deposit of compensation - Not resulting in lapse of proceedings, but liability to pay interest - Lapse provided only in case of non payment and not taking possession for five years after passing of award - If however, amount in respect of majority of land holdings compensation has not been dopsited, proceedings will not lapse but result oin higher compensation. (Para 204, 205)

(z) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Tender and payment - Obligation gets fulsilled on tendering the amount - Landowners cannot be forced to receive it. (Para 206, 211, 223)

Act, 1894 - Section 33 and 34 - Interest in case of default - 9% from date of taking possession for one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15 % - Contention that beneficiaries could invest the amount in interest bearing account rejected - No government security provides rate of interest higher than that provided. (Para 207)

(aa) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Window of five years after the Act coming into force for payment - Contention of reading the window of five years prior to the Act coming into force - Contention, if accepted, would lead to retrospective operation of a provision and the nullification of acquisition proceedings long completed, by its application for a time when it did not exist - Contention rejected. (Para 208)

(ab) Interptretation of statute - External aid - Judgments under other Acts - For determining whether obligation for making payment under a particular Act has been fulfilled, decisions on such obligations under different other laws would be relevant. (Para 211)

(ac) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) and Proviso - Use of word ‘paid’ in main section and ‘deposited’ in the proviso - When legislature uses two different expressions in the same statute, they must be given different meanings to carry out legislative intent - "Paid" does not include "deposited" within its meaning. (Para 222, 224)

(ad) Land Acquisition Rules framed under section 55, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Standing orders issued under the Rules - Mode of payment of compensation - When landowners fail to receive compensation despite notice - Amount has to be paid to the treasury as revenue deposit payable to the landowner - Not depositing the amount in court dose not cause prejudice to the beneficiary as his amount is secrured with higher interest from the date of taking over possession - Acquisition proceedings cannot be invalidate merely ground of payment being made in treasury rather than deposit in court. (Para 229, 230, 239, 241)

(ae) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Applies only to proceedings pending on date of the Act coming into force - Not where possession has not been taken or compensation has not paid - Nor where proceedings have been concluded long back - Section 24(2) not a tool to revive those proceedings and to question the validity of taking acquisition proceedings where possession taken in 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, or to question the manner of deposit of amount in the treasury.(Para 242)

(af) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) r/w sections 16 and 17, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Act 1894 uses the terms ‘possession’ whereunder possession could be taken by panchnama - section 24 uses the term ‘physical possession’ - Difference, if any - Drawing of memorandum of taking possession under Act, 2013 amounts to taking physical possession of the land - For possession Corpus and animus both are necessary - A person with title is considered to be in actual possession - Once possession is taken, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances - Title of landholder ceases and State becomes absolute owner and in possession of the property - Anybody retaining possession thereafter or using the land acquired is trespasser - After vesting and taking possession of land section 24(2) does not contemplate divesting it from State. (Para 245, 247, 251, 253, 254, 256, 272)

(ag) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 16 and 17 - Mode of taking possession - Drawing of Panchnama by itself is enough and is a proof of the fact that possession has been taken. (Para 271)

(ah) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(2) - Acquisitions completed decades ago being questioned conte ding that possession not taken, asserting that drawing a panchnama was illegal - Blatant misuse of the provision. (Para 276)

(ai) Interpretation of statute - Maxim - "Actus curiæ neminem gravabit" - Equitable maxim - Not a specific rule or principle of law - Limited scope - Application discretionary. (Para 280)

(aj) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 - Lapsing of proceeding - On no action taken to pay compensation for five years after passing of award - Exception - Delay due to reasons beyond control of authorities - Interim injunction passed by court - One reason beyond control of authorities - Period of interim order has to be excluded - No necessity for providing for exclusion of the period in the statute - Some States providing for exclusion of the period - That could be ex abundanti cautela - Casus omissus not applied. (Para 282, 283, 284, 291, 309)

(ak) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 - Benefit of higher compensation - Applicable not only to the litigants but all beneficiaries. (Para 287)

(al) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 - Benefits - No interim orders - Litigation may be frivolous or based on forged documents - Litigants may resort to delays and dilatory tactics - Therefore litigation has to be decided on merit - Section 24 does not discriminate litigants and non-litigants with respect to the same acquisition. (Para 298, 304)

(am) Interpretation of statute - Statutory provision would prevail upon common law principles. (Para 310)

(an) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24 - Maxims - "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" (equity maxim: an act of the court shall prejudice no man); "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" (law does not expect the performance of the impossible) and "nemo tenetur ad impossibilia" (no one is bound to do an impossibility) - These maxims get attracted to benefit of authorities in case of interim injunctions - In case of litigation without merit just to delay the proceeding, maxim “commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet” (convenience cannot accrue to a party from his own wrong) is attracted - Held, omission to expressly enact a provision excluding operative period of any interim order preventing the State from taking possession of acquired land, or from giving effect to the award - Cannot result in inclusion of such period or periods for purpose of reckoning the period of 5 years. (Para 313, 314, 318, 331)

(ao) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 144 - Restitution - Section 144 is rather a statutory recognition of the rule of justice, equity and fair play - Not a source of restitution - Restitution is a remedy against unjust enrichment or unjust benefit - An unintentional mistake of the Court, which may prejudice the cause of any party, must and alone could be rectified - Held, period of operation of the interim order has to be excluded for counting the period of 5 years under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 332, 333, 335, 336)

(ap) Act, 2013 - Section 24 - Beneficial provision of higher compensation - Attracted only in case possession has been taken but compensation not paid before 5 years or more from the date of the Act - Section 24 cannot be invoked on basis of void transactions or sales on basis of power of attorney or otherwise - Legality of concluded cases cannot be questioned under the guise of Section 24(2) - Stale claims cannot be entertained - Stale claims cannot be revived u/s 24. (Para 337, 340, 342, 353, 359)

Facts of the case:

The correct interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, is the subject matter of present reference.

A three Judge Bench in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183, interpreted Section 24 of the Act of 2013. In the order reported as Yogesh Neema v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 6 SCC 387, a two-judge Bench, however doubted the decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residents Association v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2015) 3 SCC 353 (which had followed Pune Municipal Corporation) and referred the issue to a larger Bench. Later, in another appeal (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.2131 of 2016 (Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs., 2018 SCC Online SC 100) the matter was referred to a larger Bench.

The Court also felt that several other issues arose which it outlined, were not considered in Pune Municipal Corporation. The Court therefore referred the case to larger Bench. In Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra a Bench of three Judges was of the view that the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation did not consider several aspects relating to the interpretation of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. Therefore two learned judges in IDA vs. Shailendra opined prima facie that decision appeared to be per incuriam.

Later, in Indore Development Authority v. Shyam Verma, (SLP No. 9798 of 2016) the Court considered it appropriate to refer the matter to be resolved by a larger Bench at the earliest. Yet again State of Haryana vs. Maharana Pratap Charitable Trust (Regd) & Anr (CA No.4835 of 2015) referred the matter for consideration of the larger issue.

Finding of the Court:

All aspects of section 24 interpreted and explained.

Result: Decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation and Shree Balaji Nagar Residential Association and those following them overruled.