Section 24(1) RFCTLARR Act Can't Be Invoked If Award Under 1894 Act Couldn't Be Passed Due To Interim Orders Obtained By Land Owners: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that landowners who obtained interim orders due to which awards could not be passed under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 could not invoke Section 24(1) of RFCTLARR Act to claim higher compensation.In a case where on the date of commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, due to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013, the Court held.The bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna observed that such landowners shall be entitled to the compensation only under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.BackgroundIn this case, Allahabad High Court, allowing writ petitions filed by certain land owners, directed the Development Authorities to pay the compensation to the original landowners as per the 2013 Act on the ground that on the date on which the Act, 2013 came into force, no award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was declared with respect to the lands acquired.ContentionsOne of the contentions raised in the appeal filed by the Development Authorities was that, once the award could not be declared because of the pendency of the writ petition and/or the interim stay granted by the High Court, landowners cannot be permitted to take the benefit of compensation under the Act, 2013. It was contended that there was no inaction on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer and/or Authority in not declaring the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. On the other hand, the land owners- respondents contended that the moment it is found that no award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 at the time of commencement of Act, 2013, the landowner shall be straightaway entitled to the compensation under Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013.IssueThe issue framed by the Apex Court reads as follows: Whether in a case where an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 could not be declared by the Authority due to the pendency of the writ petition and/or the interim stay granted by the High Court, which was filed by the landowners and consequently as on the date on which the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act, 2013) came into force, there was no award declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, the original landowners shall be entitled to compensation determined under sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act, 2013?Section 24 RFCTLARRThe provisions states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, 2013 in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, - a) Where no award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 has been made, all provisions of the Act, 2013 relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or b) Where an award under Section 11 has been made, such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the Act, 1894 as if the said Act has not been repealed.Necessary to dwell into the reasons as to why no award has been madeThe court examined the implication of the words "where no award under Section 11 of Act, 1894 has been made and made the following observations:"We find that the expression "where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made" has to be read contextually and not by way of a plain reading. This is because a land owner who has an interim order of stay of further proceedings pursuant to the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 issued by a Court of law and has thereby restrained the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer from making an award cannot thereafter by contending that as on 01.01.2014, no award has been made by the acquiring authority seek benefit under the provisions of the Act, 2013 by receiving a higher compensation."Thus, it is necessary to dwell into the reasons as to why no award has been made. As discussed aforesaid, if there is an order of restraint on the Collector or on the acquiring authority and as a result of which, the Collector or the Land Acquisition Officer is not in a position to make an award for reasons beyond his control and in compliance of the interim order granted by a court of law at the instance of the land owner or any other person who may have questioned the acquisition, the period during which the interim order has operated has to be reckoned and if on the date of enforcement of Act, 2013 i.e., 01.01.2014, no award has been made owing to the operation of such an interim order granted by a Court in favour of the land owner, then the provisions of the 2013, Act cannot straightaway be made applicable in the determination of the compensation. This is because, but for the operation of the interim order, the award could have been made under the provisions of the Act, 1894 until ...

Section 24(1) RFCTLARR Act Can't Be Invoked If Award Under 1894 Act Couldn't Be Passed Due To Interim Orders Obtained By Land Owners: Supreme Court

Ashok KM

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Section 24(1) RFCTLARR Act Can't Be Invoked If Award Under 1894 Act Couldn't Be Passed Due To Interim Orders Obtained By Land Owners: Supreme Court

Ashok KM

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers