Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Analysis and Conclusion:The provided sources collectively demonstrate that land acquisitions for private or PPP projects frequently bypassed the legal requirement of obtaining at least 80% consent from affected families. This non-compliance constitutes a violation of statutory mandates under the relevant land acquisition laws, undermining the legitimacy of the process and infringing upon the rights of landowners. Such procedural lapses have led to legal challenges and questions regarding the fairness and legality of these acquisitions ["Sameer Dalmia VS State Of Punjab & Ors. - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Orsu Anthaiah vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"], ["Orsu Anthaiah vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"].
Land acquisition remains a contentious issue in India, especially when companies seek to procure land for industrial or commercial projects. A common query arises: In land acquisition for a company, is the consent of 80% of affected families required? This question often stems from misconceptions about statutory mandates under evolving land laws. While procedural rigor is paramount, the blanket requirement for 80% consent does not universally apply, particularly under the older regime. This post delves into the legal nuances, drawing from key judgments and statutes to provide clarity for businesses, landowners, and stakeholders.
Historically, land acquisition for companies in India falls under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA 1894), particularly Part VII, which addresses acquisitions for private companies distinct from public purposes. Section 3(f) explicitly excludes company acquisitions from the 'public purpose' definition, yet permits them if statutory procedures are meticulously followed. Devinder Singh VS State of Punjab - 2007 7 Supreme 206
Acquisition for companies is primarily governed by Part VII of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which does not mandate public purpose but requires strict compliance with procedural provisions. Devinder Singh VS State of Punjab - 2007 7 Supreme 206
The Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, further stipulate that land must be agricultural, suitable for the project, and compliant with land-use policies. Failure to adhere can invalidate proceedings. Devinder Singh VS State of Punjab - 2007 7 Supreme 206
Under LAA 1894, there is no general mandate for obtaining consent from 80% of affected families for company acquisitions. Instead, the focus is on Section 5A, which provides affected parties an opportunity to file objections and be heard. Consent may arise in rehabilitation contexts or settlement agreements but is not statutory for all cases. R. L. Arora VS State Of U. P. - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 403
The requirement of consent from 80% of affected families is not a general legal prerequisite for all company acquisitions; instead, such consent may be relevant in specific contexts. R. L. Arora VS State Of U. P. - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 403
This shifts dramatically with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act 2013), which repealed LAA 1894. For private company acquisitions or public-private partnerships (PPPs), consent of at least 80% of project-affected families (PAFs) is typically required through a prior informed process, except in urgency cases limited to defense or emergencies. Alok Agrawal VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management - 2017 Supreme(Chh) 218Indore Development Authority VS Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. - 2020 5 Supreme 194
It has also been ensured that consent of at least 80 per cent. of the project affected families is to be obtained through a prior informed process. Alok Agrawal VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management - 2017 Supreme(Chh) 218
Public purpose has been comprehensively defined... It has also been ensured that consent of at least 80 per cent of the project affected families is to be obtained. Indore Development Authority VS Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. - 2020 5 Supreme 194
Section 2(2) extends these provisions to company acquisitions for public purposes where land vests with the government. Courts have quashed notifications under RFCTLARR 2013 for non-compliance with social impact assessments and consent mandates. Alok Agrawal VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management - 2017 Supreme(Chh) 218
Even without 80% consent under LAA 1894, strict procedural compliance is non-negotiable. Key steps include:
Lapses, like inadequate public notice, render acquisitions void. Procedural lapses, such as non-compliance with statutory notices or public consultation, can invalidate land acquisition proceedings. Somula VS Government of Andhra Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 611
Strict procedural compliance, including proper public notice, opportunity for hearing, and adherence to timelines, is essential. Somula VS Government of Andhra Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 611
Under RFCTLARR 2013, additional layers like Social Impact Assessment (SIA) (Sections 4-10) and Rehabilitation & Resettlement (R&R) schemes are mandatory, reinforcing consent in applicable scenarios. Caritas India, Rep. by Diocesan Director Fr. Anthony Raj VS Union of India, Department of Law and Justice, Rep by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 1095
Judicial precedents underscore procedural primacy. In interpretations of Sections 40-41, LAA 1894, courts affirmed no inherent 80% consent need but stressed procedures. R. L. Arora VS State Of U. P. - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 403
Rehabilitation cases highlight consent's role post-agreement: Once a consent award is passed, and compensation is accepted, the landowner's right to seek further reference or objection is extinguished. State of Karnataka VS Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar - 2005 3 Supreme 151
RFCTLARR 2013 cases reveal stricter norms. For instance, acquisitions lapsed for skipping SIA and consent. Alok Agrawal VS State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Disaster Management - 2017 Supreme(Chh) 218 In Orient Cement Factory disputes, Collectors were directed to address PAF employment claims per agreements, expanding 'affected families' beyond pattadars. S. KIRAN KUMAR HYDERABAD A.P. vs THE VICE CHAIRMANAND MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC. HYDERABAD AND2OT - 2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 58
Supreme Court rulings on Section 24 clarify transitional lapsing: Proceedings under LAA 1894 continue unless awards are over five years old without possession or payment. Indore Development Authority VS Manoharlal & Ors. Etc. - 2020 5 Supreme 194Bhadaram Mikir VS State of Assam
State-specific acts, like Tamil Nadu's 1997 Act, were quashed post-2013 for repugnancy without presidential assent under Article 254(2). Caritas India, Rep. by Diocesan Director Fr. Anthony Raj VS Union of India, Department of Law and Justice, Rep by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 1095
In Karnataka, KIAD Act acquisitions must align with RFCTLARR 2013, including consent for industrial zones. J. Venkatesh Reddy, S/o. Gurumurthy Reddy VS State of Karnataka - 2017 Supreme(Kar) 397
To mitigate risks:
Note: This is general information based on statutes and judgments. Consult a legal expert for case-specific advice, as outcomes depend on facts and jurisdiction.
In conclusion, while the specter of 80% consent looms larger under modern laws, companies succeeding in land acquisition hinge on procedural fidelity and stakeholder engagement. Staying informed on these dynamics safeguards projects from judicial scrutiny.
#LandAcquisitionIndia #CompanyLandLaw #LegalConsent
The Petitioners and other affected land owners wanted to file strong objections to the land acquired by Government. ... The Respondent No.1 has stated in their affidavit-in-reply that, Goa Government has not acquired the land in question for any company or Respondent No.4. ... The land is not acquired for corporate and commercial benefit of any company but the same is acquired for public purpose. 10. ... Learned Additional Governmen....
Even in such a case, consent of at least 80% of affected families had to be taken. Neither of these requirements have been met in this case. 28. ... If land was to be acquired for a public private partnership project or for a public purpose to be executed by a private company, consent of at least 70%/80% of the effected families respectively was necessary in accordance with Section 2(2) of the 2013 Act. ... , the p....
was not within the Division of Bulathsinghala, that the granting of relief to the displaced families was a function of the National Disaster Management Committee which had been appointed consequent to a Cabinet decision and that State policy was to consider granting "relief to families affected ... There was no material to show as to whether the people in Paragoda, Molcava and Ihala Welgama were affected by floods, as the correspondence made available to Court only showed that only nine ....
We are therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by the Orrissa High Court or evtn by the Calcutta high Court that a company, local authority or a person for whose benefit the land is acquired is not an interested person. ... It was contended before the single Judge that the government was not competant to acquire the land for purposes of a private company which could not be said to be a public purpose under Section 4 of the Act. ... For instanc....
The list of families affected by the land acquisition, shall not be limited only to the legal pattadars. The Collector will also specify which member of the family is to be given employment in case of dispute. The decision of the Collector shall be final and binding on the company. ... Though the petitioners filed several representations before the District Collector, no action has not been taken. ... He also submits that petitioners have not given s....
It has also been ensured that consent of at least 80 per cent. of the project affected families is to be obtained through a prior informed process. ... the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation to the effected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by such acquisition and make adequate provisions for s....
and Resettlement Act, 2013, (‘Fair Compensation Act’) and that they are not being compensated even though they are ‘Project Affected Families’ and ‘Project Affected Persons’. ... and DUSIB will not be responsible for any damage caused due the action taken. ... consent of at least seventy per cent. of those affected families, as defined in sub-clauses (i) and (v) of clause (c) of section 3, shall be obtained through a process as/p .....
It is further submitted that the respondents herein have neither taken the consent of 80% nor 70% from the affected families i.e., from the petitioners and moreover 100 families are opposing the said acquisition under Section 3(c) (i) and (v) of the LARR Act and it is further submitted that petitioners ... With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. ... have submitted their objection wheneve....
It is further submitted that the respondents herein have neither taken the consent of 80% nor 70% from the affected families i.e., from the petitioners and moreover 100 families are opposing the said acquisition under Section 3(c) (i) and (v) of the LARR Act and it is further submitted that petitioners ... With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. ... have submitted their objection wheneve....
It is further submitted that the respondents herein have neither taken the consent of 80% nor 70% from the affected families i.e., from the petitioners and moreover 100 families are opposing the said acquisition under Section 3(c) (i) and (v) of the LARR Act and it is further submitted that petitioners ... With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 2. ... have submitted their objection wheneve....
"Public purpose" has been comprehensively defined, so that Government intervention in acquisition is limited to defence, certain development projects only. It has also been ensured that consent of at least 80 per cent of the project affected families is to be obtained through a prior informed process. Acquisition under urgency clause has also been limited for the purposes of national defence, security purposes, and Rehabilitation and Resettlement needs in the event of emergencies or natural calamities only. 92. Section 2(2) of the Act of 2013, provides that in the....
“Public purpose” has been comprehensively defined, so that Government intervention in acquisition is limited to defence, certain development projects only. It has also been ensured that consent of at least 80 per cent of the project affected families is to be obtained through a prior informed process. Acquisition under urgency clause has also bee limited for the purposes of national defence, security purposes and Rehabilitation and Resettlement needs in the event of emergencies or natural calamities only.
Acquisition under urgency clause has also been limited for the purposes of national defence, security purposes and Rehabilitation and Resettlement needs in the event of emergencies or natural calamities only. It has also been ensured that consent of at least 80 per cent of the project affected families is to be obtained through a prior informed process. “Public purpose” has been comprehensively defined, so that Government intervention in acquisition is limited to defence, certain development projects only.
Consent of at least 80% of the project affected families is also provided to be obtained through a prior informed process. 18. Sub-Section (2) of Section 2 of the 2013 provides that the provisions of the Act relating to land acquisition, consent, compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement shall also apply, when the appropriate Government acquires land for the purposes for public private partnership projects, where the ownership of the land continues to vest with the Government, for public purpose and also for private companies for public purpose, as defined in sub-Sectio....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
