Summary
Land in Faizabad and Moradabad was acquired by Development Authorities under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with the urgency clause and 80% of the compensation deposited, but the landowners challenged the acquisitions by writ petitions and obtained interim stays, so no award under Section 11 could be made for their plots before the 2013 Act came into force on 01.01.2014. The Allahabad High Court, on oral submissions and without amendment of the petitions, directed the Authorities to pay compensation under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. The Supreme Court allowed the Authorities' appeals: a landowner whose own stay prevented the award cannot claim the higher 2013 Act compensation; the awards are to be made and compensation determined under the 1894 Act.
Issues
- Whether landowners at whose instance the High Court stayed acquisition proceedings, so that no award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made before the 2013 Act came into force, are entitled to compensation determined under Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
- Whether the words 'where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made' in Section 24(1)(a) are to be read literally or contextually, having regard to the reason why the award was not made.
Provisions considered
- Section 24(1)(a) and (b), Section 24(2), Section 114, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Section 24 is a saving clause for acquisitions initiated under the 1894 Act; whether clause (a) or (b) applies depends on why no award existed on 01.01.2014. Where the award was prevented by an interim order obtained by the landowner, the period of the stay must be reckoned and the 2013 Act compensation does not apply; the principles of Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal on excluding stay periods under Section 24(2) apply equally to Section 24(1). (¶¶ 10, 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, 10.13, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- Sections 4, 6, 11, 11A (with Explanation), 17 and 48(1), Land Acquisition Act, 1894Section 11A requires the award within two years of the declaration but excludes periods during which proceedings are stayed by a court; the Authorities could not make awards for the stayed plots while the writ petitions were pending, and the awards are now to be made and compensation determined under the 1894 Act read with Section 114 of the 2013 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. (¶¶ 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 10.2, 10.8, 18)
Held
- The expression 'where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made' in Section 24(1)(a) has to be read contextually. A landowner who obtained a stay of proceedings pursuant to the Section 6 declaration and thereby restrained the Collector from making an award cannot thereafter contend that, as no award existed on 01.01.2014, compensation must be determined under the 2013 Act; but for the stay the award would have been made and clause (b) of Section 24(1) would have applied. (¶¶ 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, 10.13)
- The reasoning of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal — that the 2013 Act is not intended to benefit litigants who obtained interim orders, that periods covered by a court's order are excluded as the authorities are prevented from acting (actus curiae neminem gravabit; the law does not expect the impossible), and that the unfair advantage of an interim order must be neutralised — applies equally when interpreting Section 24(1). There was no inaction by the Authority in not declaring the award, and the State and public exchequer cannot be made to suffer for it. (¶¶ 11, 11.1, 12, 13, 14)
- Granting 2013 Act compensation to the litigating landowners alone would produce two different measures of compensation for lands acquired under the same notification — the other owners having been paid under the 1894 Act — and such discrimination could never have been intended by Parliament. (¶ 14)
- On the principle of restitution, an unsuccessful litigant who had the benefit of an interim order cannot encash it on the enforcement of the 2013 Act by first stalling the acquisition and then seeking higher compensation; a landowner who succeeds gets the acquisition quashed, and one who fails must be placed in the position he would have occupied but for the litigation and interim order. (¶¶ 15, 15.1, 16)
- Where on the date of commencement of the 2013 Act no award had been declared under Section 11 of the 1894 Act due to the pendency of proceedings and/or an interim stay granted by the court, the landowners are not entitled to compensation under Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act and are entitled to compensation only under the 1894 Act. (¶ 17)
Result
Appeals allowed; the Allahabad High Court's judgments of 24.04.2017 (Lucknow Bench) and 20.07.2017 directing compensation under Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act quashed and set aside; the Authorities to declare awards under Section 11 of the 1894 Act and determine compensation under that Act, read with Section 114 of the 2013 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the landowners being free to seek enhancement under the 1894 Act only. No order as to costs.