[SC LIVE UPDATES] Land Acquisition- Constitution Bench Hearing- [Court -3]

The next judgement is in the SG’s compilation. Pg. 13. Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana.

1. Constitution of the Bench is different.

2. 4/2/2014.

SD - An application was filed by the land owners that a new Act was in existence and they want the benefit of the new Act.

This judgment had been rendered by 3 judges of the SC. I accord the utmost respect to this. You may not agree, but this is my opinion.

1. This is the first judgement of the SC on S24. Within 24 days of the Act. There was an understanding of the principles which were applicable to a construction. 31, 6, 114.

2. Rendered by 3 judges.

3. Issue squarely arose when an application was made because potentially when a reversal if made would have led to an issue.

J. Mishra - We are not deciding the correctness of the judgement.

J. Bhat - We are proceeding on the hypothesis that it would have been set aside.

SD - 1. State would have failed to persuade the Court on merits. The best that could be said about PMC - Please set aside the BHC and restore the acquisition. Even in that, the SC found that as the amount was not deposited, 24(2) applies and the proceedings are deemed to have lapses. The new Act arose because an application was made under it.

J. Saran - There’s no pleadings as such regarding the applicability of the new Act.

SD - I must persuade you on this.

J. Mishra - We are interpreting afresh. We are not bound by an opinion prima facie.

J. Saran - It has a persuasive value. But, we have to see the context.

J. Bhat - 24/1/2008. There had been a period in which they could have paid. But, in December, the acquisition was quashed. Then why would they pay ? They would not have any foresight regarding the coming of the new Act. Nothing in the old Act obliged me to pay then and there.

For “compensation has not been paid”, it is important to look at S31 of 1894 Act.

1. No person competent to alienate the land.

2. Person has refused to receive the compensation.

These are the instances contemplated by S31(2).

1. Physical possession of the land has not been taken.

2. Compensation has not been paid.

In these two instances, it will lead to lapsing.

In Para 10, 24(1) begins with a non-obstante clause and thus the Parliament has given it an overriding effect. 24(1)(b) contemplates that such proceedings shall continue.

(Reading our Para 4 and 5) - The govt expressly said that 24(2) does not apply in this case. The question is where was the occasion to pay ?

J. Bhat - Govt. wasn’t obliged to pay.

SD - My understanding is that if this judgement was reversed, then the award would have come and then the issue would have come that if this was five years earlier, then there could have been a reversal.

SD - Once the award is passed, you are duty bound to pay the compensation. S24 squarely arose in this case.

Pg. 3 - What is the context in which this arose (J. Mishra asked this Q. yesterday). PMC challenged the Bombay HC order. But they wanted them to consider the aspect of 24(1).

J. Mishra - Once the HC has quashed the acquisition, then 24(2) could not be resorted to. How could the State do it ?

SD - The answer is thatleave having been granted, had PMC succeeded, does 24(2) apply at all is the question ?

J. Bhat - Award had been made. There was no acquisition. Until the court restated the proposition. How could the govt be expected to pay compensation if there was quashing ?

SD - Once the award is passed, you are duty bound to pay the compensation. S24 squarely arose in this case.

I wish to project to the court what the act of the court has been. In Mr. Mehta’s Vol. 1, Pg. 1 - PMC case.

1. Panel of 3 learned judges.

2. 24/01/2014. Less than a month of the Act coming into being.