Table of contents

Introduction

Database of Supreme Court Case

• Coram
• Bench
• Title of the case
• Citation
• Current status

Facts of the case

Parliamentary Debate

Issues raised

Judgement

Cases referred

M/s. Ranchhoddas Atmaram and Anr. v. The Union of India and Ors.

Prof. Yashpal & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

Joint Director of Mines Safety v. Tandur and Nayandgi Stone Quarries (P) Ltd.

Samee Khan v Bindu Khan

Green v. Premier Glynrhonwy State Co. L.R

Introduction

One of the crucial issue considered by the Constitution bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and others, while interpreting Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(hereinafter referred as ‘the act of 2013’), was whether the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 used in between possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid to be read as “and”?

According to the State, when two negative conditions are connected by “or,” they are construed as cumulative, the word “or” is to be read as “nor” or “and.” In other words, the State argued that for proceedings under old Act to lapse, both the conditions should exist – failure to take possession and failure to pay compensation. The landowners argued that lapse of acquisition occurred in case of either of the eventualities.

Database of Supreme Court Case

Facts of the case

The question in the case was whether deposit of compensation by the Government in Government treasury can be regarded as “paid” within the meaning of Section 24(2) of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. Consequently, case involved the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. Also, The court held that the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).

Parliamentary Debate

In the speech made by Jairam Ramesh, then Minister where he stated that if the award has been passed and no compensation has been given and no physical possession has been taken the new law will be applicable., the bench said:

“The Minister concerned has stated that there would be lapse only if in case possession has not been taken and compensation has not been paid. The emphasis right from the beginning was on possession. Thus, from the perusal of debate too, it is apparent that the word “or” had been understood as “and”.”

Issues raised

• What is the meaning of the expression paid’/tender’ in Section 24of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013  and Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, LA (Act of 1894′)?
• Whether non-deposit of compensation in court under section 31(2)of the Act of 1894 results into lapse of acquisition under section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
• What are the consequences of non- deposit in Court especially when compensation has been tendered and refused under section 31(1)of the Act of 1894 and section 24(2) of the Act of 2013?
• Whether such persons after refusal can take advantage of their wrong/conduct?
• Whether the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 used in between possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid to be read as “and”?
• Whether proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 has to be construed as part thereof or proviso to Section 24(1)(b)?
• What meaning is to be given to the word “paid” used in Section 24(2) and “deposited” used in the proviso to Section 24(2)?
• What are the consequences of payment not made?
• What are the consequences of the amount not deposited?
• What is the effect of a person refusing to accept the compensation?

Judgement

1. The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
2. The expression ‘paid’ in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the “landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
3. In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
4. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of Section 24(1)(b).
5. The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/ memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
6. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority as on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.
7. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.

Cases referred

In M/s. Ranchhoddas Atmaram and Anr. v. The Union of India and Ors.,a Constitution Bench had observed that if there are two negative conditions, the expression “or” has to be read as conjunctive and conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled.

In Prof. Yashpal & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., the expression “established or incorporated” was read as “established and incorporated.”, the bench noted.

In Joint Director of Mines Safety v. Tandur and Nayandgi Stone Quarries (P) Ltd., “and” was read disjunctively considering the legislative intent.

In Samee Khan v Bindu Khan, the term “and” was construed as “or” to carry out the legislative intention.

In Green v. Premier Glynrhonwy State Co. L.R, it has been laid down that sometimes word “or” read as “and” and vice versa, but does not do so unless it becomes necessary because “or” does not generally mean “and” and “and” does not generally mean “or”.

Click here for Judgment