Summary
Land in Jammu was notified for acquisition under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 to relocate petroleum depots. The State Act was repealed during the landowners' writ petitions, and no award had been made. The High Court directed that compensation be determined under the 2013 Act by applying Section 24(1)(a). The Supreme Court held that Section 24(1) covers only acquisitions begun under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, not those under a pari materia State statute (following Bangalore Development Authority). Clause 2(13) of the Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, saved the 1990 Act proceedings. In any case, the delay in making the award was caused by the status quo orders. The direction was set aside, and the other challenges were remitted to the High Court.
Issues
- Whether Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 applies to acquisitions begun under the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990, which is pari materia with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the saving in clause 2(13) of the J&K Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, kept the acquisition under the 1990 Act.
- Whether landowners could claim compensation under the 2013 Act because no award was made, when status quo orders obtained in the litigation had stood in the way of an award.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(1)(a), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Its plain words reach only proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They cannot be extended to an acquisition under the J&K State Act of 1990, even though that Act is pari materia with the 1894 Act. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2, 6)
- Section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897Read with clause 2(13) of the 2019 Removal of Difficulties Order, it preserved the rights and liabilities accrued under the repealed 1990 Act, so the acquisition continued under that Act. (¶ 5.3)
- Clause 2(13), Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019Because the Order came after the 2013 Act, it was presumed to have been made with the 2013 Act in mind. Its saving clause therefore excluded Section 24(1)(a) for lands acquired under the State Act. (¶ 5.3)
- Sections 4, 6 and 11, Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990The Section 4 notification and Section 6 declaration were common to all the lands. The status quo orders in some writ petitions therefore stood in the way of an award under Section 11 for all of them. (¶¶ 2.1, 5.4)
Held
- Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act speaks only of acquisitions initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the 1894 Act never applied in Jammu and Kashmir. Following Bangalore Development Authority, which held that the 2013 Act repeals only the 1894 Act, it does not govern an acquisition under the State Act of 1990 even if that Act is pari materia. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2)
- Clause 2(13) of the 2019 Order, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, saves rights and liabilities under the repealed State Act. That Order was made after the 2013 Act, so Section 24(1)(a) cannot apply to these lands. (¶ 5.3)
- Some landowners obtained status quo orders against a common notification and declaration, and that prevented an award. Applying Indore Development Authority v Manoharlal, the landowners cannot rely on the absence of an award, which their own litigation caused, to claim enhanced compensation under the 2013 Act. (¶¶ 5.4, 6)
- The High Court had granted only the landowners' alternative prayer and had not decided their other grounds against the acquisition. Those grounds were remitted for decision on merits, but the question whether the 2013 Act applies was closed and may not be reopened. (¶¶ 6.1, 7)
Result
Appeals allowed. The direction to determine compensation under the 2013 Act was set aside. The writ petitions were remitted to the High Court only on the other grounds challenging the acquisition, with the question of the 2013 Act's applicability concluded. No costs.