Explained: Supreme Court Imbroglio Over Land Acquisition By The State

Before the Supreme Court adjourned for Holi vacation on February 23, an unprecedented crisis of sorts seemed to emerge with one three-Judge bench presided by Justice Madan B Lokur, staying the hearing of compensation matters in the land acquisition cases in all the high courts and in the Court itself till it heard the parties on the question of reference to a larger bench on the issue on March 7. However, two two-Judge benches, one presided by Justice Arun Mishra and another by Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, pre-empted it, by making a reference to the CJI for constituting a larger bench, to consider the same issue. The CJI, in his role as the Master of the Roster, posted the matter before the five-Judge Constitution bench, which is already hearing the Aadhaar matter, on March 6.LiveLaw answers some of the questions which readers may have on this controversy.Q: So, what is the issue in the latest controversy?A: The issue is interpretation of Section 24 of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. In 2014, a three-Judge bench interpreted this provision in Pune Municipal Corporation v Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, to mean that acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act five years prior to the coming into force of the 2013 Act would lapse if the acquired land was not taken possession of by the State, or compensation was not paid to the displaced farmers. This bench was presided by Justice R.M.Lodha, who has since retired, and comprised of Justices Madan B.Lokur and Kurian Joseph.The bench held in this case that if the landholder refuses to receive the compensation, then it should be deposited with a court, rather than in the Government treasury if the proceedings were not to lapse. The Arun Mishra-Adarsh Kumar Goel-Mohan M.Shantanagoudar bench, on February 8, in Indore Development Authority v Shailendra (D) Through LRS & Ors, held that this ruling in Pune Municipal Corporation was per incuriam, because it held that the landholder, cannot take advantage of his own wrong, by refusing to take the compensation under the old Act, in order to make it lapse, so that he could get the benefit of higher compensation under the 2013 Act.The question which this raised was whether a three-Judge bench was competent to declare the law laid down by another three-Judge bench per incuriam, without consideration by a larger bench. Justice Shantanagoudar disagreed with the other two Judges on this issue. But Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Goel held that since the majority did not think it was necessary to refer the issue to the larger bench, the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation was rendered per incuriam.On February 21, this issue was raised before another three-Judge bench of Justices Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Deepak Gupta, which expressed its anguish over the lack of judicial discipline by the Arun Mishra bench, in deciding not to refer it for consideration by a larger bench, following its disagreement with Pune Municipal Corporation. The Lokur bench, therefore, admonished the Arun Mishra bench and decided to consider the question of reference to a larger bench on March 7. Meanwhile, on February 22, both Justices Arun Mishra and Goel, separately referred it for consideration by a larger bench, by directing the Registry to place it before the CJI, in his administrative capacity.Q: The 1894 Land Acquisition Act did not impose a time limit for the possession of the acquired land or payment of compensation, right? Therefore, was the 2013 Act correct in introducing the deemed lapsing of acquisition in Section 24?A: The 2013 Act too does not impose a time limit for taking possession of the acquired land, or payment of compensation to the landholder. What it does under Section 24, is only to enable the landholder to derive greater benefits from the 2013 Act in terms of compensation, if the process of acquisition remained incomplete despite passage of five years after it started under the 1894 Act. The objective is that if the acquisition lapses under the 1894 Act, then the landholder would be entitled to the benefit of higher compensation under the 2013 Act, if the State begins fresh acquisition proceedings for the same land.Q: Is not the Arun Mishra bench correct in refusing the benefit of higher compensation to the landholder, if the latter refused to take the compensation under the old Act within five years, and thereby making the acquisition lapse?A: Under the 1894 Act, the State had no time limit to pay compensation to the landholder. Therefore, in many cases, the State was lethargic in giving compensation to the landholder, whose land was acquired for public purposes. But the State has an obligation under the 1894 Act to pay compensation, and deposit it in the court, if the landholder, for any reason, refused to or did not take the compensation offered. The Collector, who is authorised to pay compensation, cannot simply keep it...

Explained: Supreme Court Imbroglio Over Land Acquisition By The State

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags