Summary
In this 2019 order, the Court sought larger-Bench reconsideration of Delhi Metro Rail Corporation v. Tarun Pal Singh on the placement and operation of the proviso to Section 24 of the 2013 land-acquisition legislation. It explained why the proviso appeared to qualify Section 24(1)(b), concerning compensation, rather than Section 24(2), concerning lapse. The controversy was referred instead of finally deciding the connected matters.
Issues
- Whether the proviso to Section 24 qualified subsection (1)(b) or subsection (2).
- Whether Delhi Metro Rail Corporation v. Tarun Pal Singh required reconsideration by the larger Bench already considering other aspects of Section 24.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(1)(b), Section 24(2) and the proviso, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The Bench identified substantial reasons for treating the proviso as an exception to continuation of compensation under the old law, and requested larger-Bench reconsideration of the contrary decision. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- Section 114, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The repeal-and-saving framework supplied the setting for the transitional provisions under Section 24. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaThe Bench considered that treating the proviso as defeating lapse could produce arbitrary differences depending on whether an owner’s land was acquired alone or with other holdings. (¶ 12)
Held
- Section 24(1) addresses the compensation regime while Section 24(2) addresses lapse. The proviso’s majority-of-holdings condition appeared naturally to qualify Section 24(1)(b), extending the new compensation provisions despite an earlier award. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Reading the proviso as rescuing acquisition under Section 24(2) could defeat the substantive lapse provision and produce anomalies dependent on compensation to other landholders. A proviso must be read harmoniously with the enactment. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The proviso refers to an award without incorporating the five-year qualification in Section 24(2). Its language and the beneficial purpose of the legislation supported reconsideration of the earlier interpretation. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Because the larger Bench was already considering other aspects of Section 24 in Indore Development Authority, the Chief Justice of India was requested to refer Delhi Metro Rail Corporation v. Tarun Pal Singh to that Bench for reconsideration. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Matter referred for larger-Bench consideration; Chief Justice of India requested to refer Delhi Metro Rail Corporation v. Tarun Pal Singh for reconsideration with the pending Section 24 controversy.