Supreme Court Explained When Land Acquisition Gets Initiated-Sec 24 Land Acquisitions Act
D.D:28-07-2022
Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that public acquisitions must be conducted in a fair and transparent manner in order to achieve the intent and purpose of the 2013 Act.
The bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka, and C.T. Ravikumar stated that “all such procedures and formalities shall be continued until the determination of compensation by applying all compensation-determination provisions of the 2013 Act. In light of the restrictive application of the provisions to such proceedings during their continuation, a contrary interpretation would render the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act inapplicable.”
In this case, the meaning and interpretation of the term “initiated” as used in Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in relation to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 were at issue.
The question before the bench was: When Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act makes it clear with necessary implication that all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation alone would be applicable to such proceedings initiated under the L.A. Act but not concluded with an award, how are the procedures to be regulated until the proceedings reach the stage of compensation determination?
A perusal of Section 24 reveals that the issuance of an Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act is the decisive factor in determining the manner and nature of the continuation of the land acquisition proceedings.
The Supreme Court, after citing numerous rulings, stated, “There is no room for doubt on this point.” The procedures to be carried out and the manner in which they will be governed cannot remain ambiguous. They are conducted in accordance with the provisions of either the Los Angeles Act or the 2013 Act. However, pursuant to Section 24(1)(a), only the provisions relating to the determination of compensation may be applied to such proceedings; in other words, only a limited number of the provisions of the 2013 Act apply to such proceedings.”
The bench stated that, for the purposes of subsection (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act, proceedings under the L.A. Act are deemed to have commenced upon the publication of a notification under subsection (1) of Section 4 of the L.A. Act.
When Clause (a) of Subsection (1) of Section 24 of the 2013 Act is applicable, the proceedings shall continue in accordance with the L.A. Act, according to the Supreme Court. However, only for the determination of the amount of compensation shall the provisions of the 2013 Act apply.
In light of the preceding, the Supreme Court denied the petition.
Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Versus
Deepak Aggarwal & Ors.
