Summary
Land in Gautam Budh Nagar was acquired for NOIDA in 2002 under the urgency provision in Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellant's plot was taken into possession without 80% of the estimated compensation being tendered, and no award followed within two years. A three-Judge Bench, on a reference after two judges differed, held that tender and payment under Section 17(3A) is mandatory before possession and is what makes vesting absolute. Where it is paid, the Section 11A lapse does not operate and the owner may enforce an award. Where it is not, the acquisition lapses if no award is made within two years, but only if the landowner, not the authority, invokes it. Because the plot lay under a built mandi, relief was moulded: market value as on the 2008 award date, statutory benefits from 2002, and costs. The ruling is prospective.
Issues
- Whether tendering and paying 80% of estimated compensation under Section 17(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory before taking possession for absolute vesting.
- Whether Section 11A (lapse for failure to make an award within two years) applies to acquisitions under Section 17.
- Whether Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P. lays down a contrary ratio decidendi.
Provisions considered
- Section 17(1), (3A) and (4), Land Acquisition Act, 1894Payment of 80% of estimated compensation, possession thereafter, and absolute vesting must follow in sequence; only Section 5A is dispensed with, and an award under Section 11 must still be made. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Section 11A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Applies to urgency acquisitions; it does not take effect where vesting is absolute after compliance with Section 17(3A), but causes lapse at the landowner's instance where it is not complied with. (¶¶ 11, 12, 15, 16, 17)
- Article 300A, Constitution of IndiaAn owner can be divested of land only in accordance with law and on payment of compensation. (¶ 10)
Held
- The word 'shall' and the requirement to tender and pay 80% 'before taking possession' leave no discretion; payment, possession and absolute vesting occur in sequence, and absent any of them the urgency provision fails. (¶¶ 12, 13, 15)
- Where 80% is tendered and paid before possession, the land vests absolutely and Section 11A lapse cannot occur, though the owner can enforce passing of an award for the balance with statutory benefits. (¶¶ 15, 26)
- Where Section 17(3A) is not complied with, the acquisition loses its Section 17 character and lapses if no award is made within two years of the declaration, but only if the landowner invokes it; the acquiring authority or beneficiary cannot turn its own default into a benefit. (¶¶ 16, 17, 26)
- Satendra Prasad Jain only disapproved the State relying on its own non-compliance against the landowner and does not hold that urgency acquisitions can never lapse; Laxmi Devi was approved and Indore Development Authority was distinguished. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20)
- Since the appellant's plot was integrated into a built mandi and fresh acquisition under the new regime would be unjust, relief was moulded instead of declaring lapse; the principle applies prospectively and concluded cases are not to be reopened. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26)
Result
Appeal disposed of; respondents directed to determine market value of the appellant's land as on 09.06.2008 under the 1894 Act with statutory benefits from the 2002 notification, the fresh award to give a cause of action for reference, no benefit to other landowners, and costs to the appellant.