Land Acquisitions From 50 Years Ago Would Also Lapse If Treasury Deposit Not Taken As 'Paid' Under Sec 24, Observes SC

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan on Wednesday resumed his arguments before the Five Judge Constitution Bench in the Indore Development Authority case on the interpretation of Section 24 of the new Land Acquisition Act."There is no provision for refund of compensation already paid (in case of lapse)", ventured Justice Indira Banerjee on Wednesday."There is no question of any unjust enrichment in this Act. There can be virtually no situation where the State has paid and also allowed the party to be in physical possession. It is a very rare case", replied Mr. Diwan."In a situation of money had and received, the party cannot be allowed to retain it and the State can frame the rules, in exercise of its rule-making power, for its return...", he continued."Rules can be framed only when there is a provision in the Act. Rules can't be beyond the Act...How can it be said whether 12% or 20% interest is payable?", noted Justice Vineet Saran."Where the project is in jeopardy, because the land is in small pockets and the payment has been made but the possession is not taken, you may continue with fresh acquisition...", suggested Mr. Diwan."We have to give that interpretation which doesn't make the section absurd...If we read [the 'or' in section 24(2)] disjunctively, then what happens where compensation has been paid?", wondered Justice Banerjee."If we read 'or' as 'and', then there is no problem. We have to look for two negatives straight. But if we read 'or' as 'or', then the exigency would arise. The provision is not saying that if payment is made but possession is not taken, then there would be lapse", said Justice Mishra."Under section 13A of the old Act, the Collector got an opportunity to correct any clerical errors in the award and any excess amount paid could be recovered as a arrears of land revenue. But now there would be issues of limitation. Also, several landowners may have gone. So there is neither a provision for refund under the old Act now nor the new one", added Justice Ravindra Bhat."In West Bengal, a lot of cases came where the land was acquired, the notification was issued but the compensation had not been paid. The land is being used for a public purpose, say widening of a road or for a bridge. It can't be the legislative intention that the bridge be pulled down...but if the compensation is not paid and the possession is not taken, they are sitting just on the award and not bothering to do anything, in such cases, the acquisition should not (survive)", remarked Justice Bannerjee."Look at the expression 'deemed to have lapsed'. There is an inherent concept of statutory restitution in this. The legislature could not have intended that someone retain any benefit unreasonably...", replied Mr. Diwan."Why can't he say that I was deprived of the use of my property, so why should I refund?", asked Justice Mishra."The law does not take care of this situation...", stated Justice Saran. "The law provides for lapse!", repeated Mr. Diwan."Where payment is made, no consequence is given. Where possession has been taken, no consequence is given. If we read 'or' as 'and', where possession is taken and payment is made to some, either in the treasury or elsewhere, but not to the majority, then we come to the proviso...Sec 24(1)(b) says that if an award was passed under section 11 of the old Act then that Act shall continue to apply. It is a complete provision. There is no need to add the proviso to it. The proviso would be repugnant, irreconcilable there. How can we apply enhanced compensation under the new Act to (1)(b)? It would be the greatest repugnancy...We would be doing harm to (2) also if the proviso is bodily lifted and placed after (1)(b). Those people who suffered for 5 years would not get higher compensation..", reflected Justice Mishra."When you have a legislative mandate that requires payment in the reference court, then the legislature is within its power to draw the line at 5 years, even if possession is taken", asserted Mr. Diwan."Say, a large tract of land is acquired but different pockets of land are acquired under different notifications. Some have been paid but the majority have not been paid. The idea is that same higher compensation is given to all", commented Justice Banerjee."Or if the acquiring body does not have the arrangement of money, then higher compensation for all", added Justice Mishra."If there is deemed lapsing, there cannot be enhanced compensation! It has to be either one or the other", said Mr. Diwan."'Deposit' (in proviso) consequence is higher compensation. 'Paid' (in 24(2)) consequence is lapse. So does 'paid' include 'deposit' also?", questioned Justice Mishra."Deposit in the account of the beneficiaries is equivalent to payment to the beneficiaries. The legislature is contemplating a situation where payment has been made. Not paid is a situation contemplated in terms of 31(1) and 31(2)", responded Mr. Diwan."Suppose payment is tendered and it is refused and then it is deposited...

Land Acquisitions From 50 Years Ago Would Also Lapse If Treasury Deposit Not Taken As 'Paid' Under Sec 24, Observes SC

Mehal Jain

Tags