Supreme Court To Decide on Land Acquisition Act
A battle is on in the Supreme Court to save landowners from predatory land-grab practices of the government, in the name of the ‘public good’. Surprisingly, the practice under the British raj was much more just and humane than one finds in today’s regime. 
 
The Supreme Court of India is examining cases on the lapse of land acquisition under the new Act of 2013. The current law suffers from certain flaws due to which the landowners whose land is acquired by the government for state projects may be deprived of the compensation due to them.
 
This issue is dealt with in Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It states as follows:
 
24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.– (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,— 
 
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or 
 
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. 
 
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: 
 
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 
 
During January 2014, in the Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr vs Harakchand Misirimal Solanki case, the bench headed by Justice RM Lodha and comprising Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph, held that if compensation is refused by the landowner the acquiring body should deposit the same in Court and once it is deposited in the Court, the acquisition shall not lapse. Merely depositing the compensation back to the treasury account (i.e., government’s own account) does not absolve the responsibility of the acquiring body to the land owner. Various land acquisition proceedings were held to have lapsed under this judgement.
 
However, in the Indore Development Authority vs Shailendra, a three-judge bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra and comprising Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Mohan M Shantanagoudar held this judgement to be per in curium stating that the land owner, after refusing the compensation cannot take advantage of his own wrong.
 
Pune Municipal Corporation Lays Down the Correct Law
 
In my view, considering the wide variety of procedural abuse by government acquiring bodies (no proper notice, no copies of award, delay in payment) the process put in place by Justice Lodha is practical and in the true spirit of the law.
 
It is also consistent with the land acquisition procedure even envisaged by the British in the Land Acquisition Manual by FG Hartnell Anderson. In the Manual, Mr Anderson says: 
 
11. Though it would not be correct to describe the Act as confiscatory, still it undoubtedly causes hardship to individuals because it restricts them to the market value of what is taken from them. Although all the pecuniary losses, even the cost of moving and the loss on earnings resulting from interference with the good-will of business and the like, are taken into account and paid for, there are many sentimental losses which cannot be paid for, because they have no market value. The Act does not commit what is known as reinstatement under which a man losing a property artistically improved at great expense and enjoying advantages of secenery (sic.) etc., might claim to be reinstated in another property, at however great a cost, possessing the same amenities. This is not what the Act offers but only the current prosaic market value. The owner whose land is notified is in the same position as if he were compelled to sell by some sudden reverse of fortune. He cannot stand out for a reinstatement value, but only for what a fair-minded purchaser will offer him in the existing state of the market. It is the legitimate aim of all officers administering land to secure for the public all land required for the use of the State at the least burden to the tax paying public; on the other hand, no one should be deprived of his property even on account of State necessity without giving him at least as much as a prudent private purchaser would pay. Since the Act therefore imposes a burden on those whose land is taken, it must be interpreted like penal statutes strictly in favour of the private party and every irregularity prejudicing him is fatal to proceedings thereunder. It is most incumbent on all A. Os. [Acquiring Officers] in the issue of notices and in giving facilities to parties to be heard, to bear this general principle in mind.
 
In every case, the utmost consideration, consistent with fairness to both sides, should be shown to the wishes and feelings of people who have to suffer for the public good.
 
This is but a mere glimpse into the rigour Mr Anderson applied in balancing the need of the State and the right of the landowner. We must not forget that this was a British civil servant developing procedure for acquiring Indian lands for the British Government. 
 
This precise ethos of the law has been lost since Indira Gandhi introduced socialism into the Indian Constitution. After the constitutional amendment, Indian courts’ approach towards the Indian landowner has been lamentable.
 
Controversy
 
The Indore Development Authority judgement created a bigger controversy within legal circles. While it may be summed up as a storm in a tea cup, it upset the judicial procedure in a number of ways. Some commentators point out that a three-judge bench overruling another three-judge bench is not good judicial discipline. 
 
Technically, the Indore judgement side-steps the Pune judgement by claiming it is per in curium—passed overlooking some other law. But proper discipline would have required the Indore judgement to refer it to a larger bench.
 
However, controversy was further aggravated when two of the judges from the first bench, i.e., Justice Madan Lokur and Justice Kurien Joseph were confronted with the Indore Judgement. These judges sitting in the division bench (two-judge bench) directed the High Court to keep cases under Section 24(2) pending till the matter is settled by a larger bench. 
 
While this was proper, it has resulted in delays of more than two years in disposing such cases.
 
In Sum
 
The Indore Development Authority judgement has allowed officers of the government acquiring bodies to falsely record and allege that the compensation was refused. The Indore judgement has taken a hyper-technical approach to the law itself. In the process, it tries to defeat the spirit of the very law it was trying to protect. I hope the Supreme Court upholds the Pune Municipal Council judgement at the earliest.
 
(Rahul Prakash Deodhar, Advocate, Bombay High Court, has counselled Fortune 500 companies, public and private sector banks, hedge funds and private equity funds. He has previously worked with Aditya Birla Group, CRISIL and Morgan Stanley. He is the author of two books – Subverting Capitalism and Democracy and Understanding Firms. He can be reached at [email protected], on twitter at @rahuldeodhar or at his website www.rahuldeodhar.com.)
 
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User 

    COMMENTS

    Amardeep Singh Gabbu

    1 year ago

    Section 31(2) of act 1894 was optional ? . (why Land Acquisition office / Collector Has not Deposited Amount in Court , Why Amount was Deposited in Treasury ( As per Which Section Amount Deposited in Treasury) ..............................Section 31(2) of act 1894 ...If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under section 18 ..

    Amardeep Singh Gabbu

    1 year ago

    As per land acquisition office letter no 506 date 11.08.2015 Addressing Chief ExicutExE Officer Indore Development Authority (IDA) , Compensation Amount 1509410156 due on IDA towards Land Acquisition , If any one Requir I can mail PDF file (Information Received Under RTI) my email id is [email protected]

    Kuljeet Singh Sodhi

    1 year ago

    Hon’ble Apex court may also be clarified regarding the terms of compensation under LA Act 1894 . Whether term of compensation is sum of all sub sections of section 23 of the Act ( amount of compensation under section 23(1) plus add compensation under section 23(1-A) plus amount of Solatium under section 23(2) of the Act plus amount under section 28 or 34 of the Act?
    2. Whether delinking of any sub section of section 23 amounts to non- payment of compensation or part payment also amounts to non payment of compensation . In such cases provisions of section 24 of the Act 2013 are applicable ?

    Monsoon likely to be 'below normal' this year: Skymet
    Monsoon this year is likely to be "below normal" at 93 per cent of the Long Period Average (LPA) owing to developing El Nino in the Pacific Ocean, which poses higher risk for the eastern parts and a major portion of central part of the country being rain deficient, private weather forecaster Skymet said on Wednesday.
     
    The average, or normal, rainfall in the country is defined between 96 and 104 per cent of a 50-year average for the entire four-month monsoon season, which is 887 mm.
     
    Skymet said monsoon is going to have "a very sluggish start" and deficit rains are likely to spill into July.
     
    However, the second half of the season would see better rainfall as August and September are expected to see normal rains, Skymet Managing Director Jatin Singh told reporters here.
     
    "The Pacific Ocean has become strongly warmer than average. The model projections call for 80 per cent chance of El Nino (weather-producing phenomena) during March-May, dropping to 60 per cent for June to August. This means, it is going to be a devolving El Nino year, though retaining threshold values all through the season. Thus, Monsoon 2019 is likely to be below normal," he said.
     
    Once the El Nino tamps down, neutral conditions will set out, allowing improvement in rainfall, said Mahesh Palawat, Vice President (Meteorology and Climate Change) of Skymet.
     
    "The saviour factor could be IOD (Indian Ocean Dipole) which is likely to be in the neutral or positive phase during the Monsoon. Thus, it may be able to absorb some of the El Nino blues and possibly would support rainfall during the second half of Monsoon," he said.
     
    Among the areas that will be affected due to deficient rainfall are Karnataka, Vidarbha and Marathwada in Maharashtra, southwest Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand along with the northeastern states.
     
    On the other hand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and coastal Andhra Pradesh will receive more rainfall, said G. P. Sharma, President (Meteorology and Climate Change) at Skymet.
     
    Onset of monsoon can not be predicted at this moment and it has no relation with the overall rainfall the country receives, he said.
     
    The rainfall in June will be 77 per cent (126 mm) of the LPA while it will be 91 per cent (263 mm) in July, 102 per cent (266 mm) in August and 99 per cent (171 mm) in September.
     
    Palawat also said temperature in the national capital will be under control this summer due to pre-monsoon activities.
     
    Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
      
  • Like this story? Get our top stories by email.

    User 

    CBIC arrests Kushal MD Sandeep Agarwal for Rs 88cr fraud
    The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) authorities on Tuesday arrested Kushal Ltd Chairman and MD Sandeep Agarwal for using fake bills to avail the benefit of Input Tax Credit.
     
    "According to the initial estimates, the amount involved in the fraud could be around 88 crore rupees or more. We have arrested Agarwal under Section 132 and 69 of the Central GST Act," said a source in the tax department here.
     
    The offense is cognizable and non-bailable under the Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act if the amount of tax evaded or credit availed on the basis of fake invoices is more than Rs 5 crore.
     
    Both the Income Tax Department and the CBIC, which have made several arrests across the country in the recent past, have said that such operations are based on circular trading and issuance of fake invoices.
     
    As per section 69 of the CGST Act, the CBIC Commissioner can arrest and produce company directors in court if they fail to pay their CGST dues. 
     
    Kushal Ltd is engaged in the trading, manufacturing and infrastructure development business globally. The firm was earlier known as Kushal Tradelink Ltd.
     
    Market regulator, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), had earlier penalized four employees of Kushal Tradelink with a fine of Rs 6 lakh for trading during the window closure period and by taking an opposite position within six months on an earlier transaction. By doing so, the employees violated the code of conduct under the Prohibition of Insider Trading norms, Sebi had said.
     
    Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
      
  • User 

    We are listening!

    Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
      Loading...
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email
    Close

    To continue


    Please
    Sign Up or Sign In
    with

    Email

    BUY NOW

    online financial advisory
    Pathbreakers
    Pathbreakers 1 & Pathbreakers 2 contain deep insights, unknown facts and captivating events in the life of 51 top achievers, in their own words.
    online financia advisory
    The Scam
    24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
    Moneylife Online Magazine
    Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
    financial magazines online
    Stockletters in 3 Flavours
    Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
    financial magazines in india
    MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
    (Includes Moneylife Online Magazine)
    FREE: Your Complete Family Record Book
    Keep all the Personal and Financial Details of You & Your Family. In One Place So That`s Its Easy for Anyone to Find Anytime
    We promise not to share your email id with anyone