Summary
For Metro land acquisition with an award made in2011, the High Court preserved acquisition but ordered compensation under the2013 Act using the proviso to Section24(2). The Supreme Court held that the proviso belonged to subsection(2), requiring an award at least five years before commencement, and could not be attached to Section24(1)(b).
Issues
- Whether the proviso to Section24(2) applies independently to cases governed by Section24(1)(b).
- Whether an award within five years before commencement entitled these landowners to2013 Act compensation or lapse on the asserted proviso ground.
Provisions considered
- Section24(1)(b), Section24(2) and its proviso, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013The proviso was construed as part of subsection2 and not an independent extension of2013 compensation to all subsection1b cases. (¶¶ 7, 10–17)
Held
- A proviso ordinarily qualifies or excepts the provision to which it is appended. It must be read harmoniously with that provision and cannot ordinarily enlarge the enactment or import absent words, although its substantive effect depends on context. (¶¶ 8–9, 13)
- Section24(1)(b) preserves proceedings under the1894 Act where an award has been made, subject to subsection2. The proviso forms part of subsection2 and its five-year requirement; moving it into subsection1b would create inconsistency and undermine the express continuation rule. (¶ 10–13)
- Sukhbir Singh involved an award more than five years old and did not decide that the proviso formed part of subsection1b. It therefore did not support the landowners’ contention. Here the2011 award fell within five years of1January2014, so the proviso could not sustain either2013 compensation or the asserted lapse claim. (¶ 14–17)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court decision set aside and pending applications disposed of. Respondents held not entitled to compensation under the2013 Act on the ground advanced.