Land acquisition revisited: Long shadow of LA 1894 even after LARR 2013

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Barun

unread,
Mar 7, 2020, 6:02:32 AM3/7/20
to Property Rights in India
SC says land buy proceeding won't lapse as long as govt paid compensation 
Japnam Bindra, Mint, 06 Mar 2020
  • Land owners who refuse to accept compensation cannot press for cancellation of acquisition
  • SC said the benefit should go to land owners, agriculturists and not intermediaries

5-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra upholds his own verdict on land compensation

In 2018, a 3 -judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra had overruled a judgment passed by another 3-judge bench of the court in 2014, causing controversy.

DEBAYAN ROY 7 March, 2020

What a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held on Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act
Shruti Mahajan, Bar & Bench , Mar 6, 2020
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court today overruled all precedents pertaining to the interpretation of Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors etc.).

The Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah, and Ravindra Bhat rendered the judgment.

At the outset, Justice Mishra revealed that the Constitution Bench had overruled all earlier precedents on the issue.

The Court held that under Section 24(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, in case the award is not made as of January 1, 2014 (date of commencement of the 2013 Act), there will be no lapse of proceedings and the compensation will have to be determined as under the 2013 Act.

In case the award is passed within the window of five years, then proceedings shall continue as under 24(1)(b) of 2013 Act "under the Act of 1894 as if it has not been repealed". The eriod of five years mentioned here exclusdes the period of time covered under any interim orders passed by the Courts, the Apex Court clarified.

Further, the word "or" used in S. 24(2) has to be read as "nor" or "and", the Court said. The interpretation of the word "or" in the provision was crucial and a susbtantial part of the hearing was devoted for submissions on this point. The five-Judge bench has held that it is now required to be interpreted as "nor" or "and". ....

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/breaking-what-a-constitution-bench-of-the-supreme-court-held-on-section-24-of-the-land-acquisition-act


Background to this path breaking case are available here. 


Land Acquisition: Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal
Judges: S Ravindra Bhat, M.R. Shah, Vineet Saran, Indira Banerjee, Arun Mishra Case-Number SLP (C) 9036-9038/2016 [Diary No. 8700/2016] 

https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/land-acquisition-case
Land acquisition case: Justice Arun Mishra refuses to recuse himself from Constitution Bench
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages