Summary
In this February 2018 reference decision, the Supreme Court held that unconditional tender of compensation, refused by the landowner, satisfied payment for Section 24(2); failure to deposit compensation in court did not itself cause acquisition to lapse. It also addressed possession, stale claims and exclusion of periods when court orders prevented acquisition steps. All judges agreed on the answers, but only the majority declared Pune Municipal Corporation per incuriam; Shantanagoudar J favoured reconsideration by a larger Bench. The matters were to be listed for further orders.
Issues
- Whether tender, treasury deposit or failure to deposit compensation in court resulted in lapse under Section 24(2).
- How possession, stale claims and court-ordered restraints affected lapse, and whether Pune Municipal Corporation was per incuriam.
Provisions considered
- Section 24, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013In this 2018 decision the reference questions on payment, possession, stale claims and court restraints were answered; the proviso concerning majority holdings concerned higher compensation rather than lapse. (¶ Arun Mishra 153)
- Sections 31 and 34, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Unconditional tender refused by the owner discharged the payment obligation. Failure to deposit in court could attract statutory interest in appropriate cases rather than lapse. (¶¶ Arun Mishra 153, Shantanagoudar 30, Shantanagoudar 63)
Held
- The February 2018 judgment distinguished payment or tender under Section 31(1) from deposit under Section 31(2). Unconditional tender followed by refusal satisfied payment for Section 24(2); the refusing claimant could not obtain lapse merely because compensation was not deposited in court. Non-deposit could instead attract higher statutory interest in appropriate cases. (¶ Arun Mishra 153)
- Shantanagoudar J agreed that deposit in individual landowners’ treasury accounts, with legally required notice enabling release, did not cause lapse. His concurrence explained the State rules and distinguished the obligation to deposit from the consequences of default. (¶¶ Shantanagoudar 29, Shantanagoudar 30, Shantanagoudar 63)
- Drawing a panchnama was recognised as the normal mode of taking physical possession, following Banda Development Authority. Section 24 did not revive barred or stale claims. These answers did not license reopening concluded acquisition disputes merely upon enactment of the 2013 statute. (¶ Arun Mishra 153)
- Periods during which final or interim court orders disabled the authorities from taking the relevant acquisition steps had to be excluded from the five-year computation. Actus curiae neminem gravabit and other applicable common-law principles remained relevant. Section 24(2) did not apply where the court had quashed acquisition. Sree Balaji’s contrary approach was overruled. (¶¶ Arun Mishra 153, Shantanagoudar 40, Shantanagoudar 56, Shantanagoudar 57, Shantanagoudar 61, Shantanagoudar 62, Shantanagoudar 63)
- The majority declared Pune Municipal Corporation per incuriam. Shantanagoudar J disagreed with that characterization despite disagreeing with Pune’s substantive conclusion: the earlier three-judge decision had considered the statutory issue, and in his view reconsideration required a larger Bench. The final common order expressly recorded unanimity on the reference answers and the majority alone on per incuriam. (¶¶ Arun Mishra 152, Shantanagoudar 31, Shantanagoudar 35, Shantanagoudar 38, Shantanagoudar 39, Shantanagoudar 63, Final order)
Result
Reference questions answered in terms of the majority judgment; Pune Municipal Corporation declared per incuriam by majority, with Shantanagoudar J dissenting on that aspect. Matters directed to be listed on 16 February 2018 before an appropriate Bench, subject to the Chief Justice’s orders.