Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Compensation Under 2013 Act: Bharat Petroleum vs. Nisar Ahmed (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 12 October 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 902

Judges: M.R. Shah, J., Krishna Murari, J.

Can land acquisition proceedings initiated under a state law be governed by a central law enacted later? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning land acquisition in Jammu & Kashmir. The core issue was whether the compensation for land acquired under the Jammu & Kashmir State Land Acquisition Act, 1990, should be determined by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, after the state act was repealed. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case involves land acquisition proceedings initiated by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) in Jammu & Kashmir. The lands were initially sought to be acquired under the State Land Acquisition Act of 1990. A notification under Section 4 of the State Act was issued on November 15, 2016, and a declaration under Section 6 was issued on November 12, 2018. The land was being acquired for the relocation of petroleum depots.

The original landowners filed writ petitions in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, challenging the acquisition proceedings. They sought to quash the proceedings and de-notify the land. During the pendency of these petitions, the State Act of 1990 was repealed. The landowners then requested that compensation be determined according to the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, since neither possession had been taken nor an award declared under the State Act of 1990.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The landowners challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Jammu & Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, SVT 1990, in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. They sought a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings and a writ of mandamus to de-notify the land. During the pendency of the petitions, the State Act was repealed. The landowners then requested that compensation be determined according to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The High Court directed the appellants to determine the compensation of the acquired lands in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which states:

“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.”

The court also considered Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Clause 2(13) of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, which deal with the effect of repeals on existing rights and obligations.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Bharat Petroleum) Arguments:

• The appellants contended that since the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the State Act of 1990, Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013 would not be applicable.
• They argued that Clause 2(13) of the Order, 2019, read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, saved the rights and obligations acquired under the repealed State Act of 1990.
• The appellants submitted that Section 24 of the Act of 2013 applies only to acquisitions initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, not to acquisitions under other state laws. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. to support this.
• They also argued that the award could not be passed due to the stay order granted by the High Court, and this should not be a ground to apply Section 24 of the Act of 2013.

Respondents’ (Landowners) Arguments:

• The landowners argued that since neither possession had been taken nor compensation paid, and no award had been declared, the High Court was correct in directing compensation under the Act of 2013.
• They contended that Clause 2(13) of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, were not applicable in this case.
• They argued that the Bangalore Development Authority case was not applicable because the J&K Act, which was similar to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was repealed, and the Act of 2013 had come into force.
• The landowners argued that Section 24 of the Act of 2013 states that if no award has been made under the old act, then the provisions of the new act relating to compensation shall apply. They also contended that the intention of the legislature was to give the benefit of the liberal provisions of the Act of 2013 to the landowners.
• They submitted that the status quo order did not restrain the authorities from declaring the award and that no award was passed despite the same.
• As an alternative, they submitted that the land acquisition proceedings were challenged on other grounds and that the prayer for enhanced compensation was an alternative relief.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, are applicable to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Jammu & Kashmir State Land Acquisition Act, 1990.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the decision in Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. [CITATION] holding that the 2013 Act only repeals the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not any other central or state enactment dealing with acquisition.
• The Supreme Court interpreted Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, [CITATION] to mean that it applies only to acquisitions initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• The Supreme Court interpreted Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, [CITATION] to mean that the rights and obligations acquired under the repealed State Act of 1990 were saved.
• The Supreme Court interpreted Clause 2(13) of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, [CITATION] to mean that the rights and obligations acquired under the repealed State Act of 1990 were saved.
• The Supreme Court followed the decision in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.; (2020) 8 SCC 129 [CITATION] holding that the lapse of acquisition happens only if the authorities are at fault and not because of a court order.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by a strict interpretation of the legal provisions and the binding precedent set by its own previous judgments. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The explicit language of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013, which refers specifically to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not to any other state laws.
• The principle of statutory interpretation that the language of a provision should be given its plain and natural meaning.
• The binding nature of the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Bangalore Development Authority case, which clarified that the Act of 2013 does not apply to acquisitions under other state laws.
• The principle that a party cannot take advantage of a situation created by a court order obtained at their instance.
• The fact that the authorities were impeded from declaring the award due to the stay order granted by the High Court.

Key Takeaways

• The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, does not automatically apply to land acquisition proceedings initiated under state laws, even if those laws are similar to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• The language of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 is specific to acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
• Landowners cannot claim the benefit of enhanced compensation under the Act of 2013 if the acquisition was initiated under a state law, and no award was declared due to a stay order obtained by them.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order directing compensation under the Act of 2013. The Court remitted the writ petitions back to the High Court to decide on the other grounds raised by the landowners, excluding the issue of applicability of the Act of 2013.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, applies exclusively to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not to acquisitions under any other state law. This judgment reinforces the principle that statutory provisions must be interpreted strictly according to their plain language and that binding precedents must be followed. This clarifies the scope of the Act of 2013 and its applicability to acquisitions initiated under state laws.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in directing the payment of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for land acquired under the Jammu & Kashmir State Land Acquisition Act, 1990. The court clarified that Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 applies only to acquisitions initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The matter was remanded to the High Court to consider other grounds raised by the landowners.