Supreme Court clarifies time limit for land acquisition awards under the 2013 Act: Executive Engineer vs. Mahesh (10 November 2021)

Case Background

The case revolves around land acquisition for the Gosikhurd Project in Maharashtra. On 16th June 2011, the State of Maharashtra issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring 203.86 hectares of land in village Adyal, District Bhandara. This was followed by declarations under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, the last of which was dated 8th August 2012.

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act) came into force on 1st January 2014, repealing the 1894 Act. On 30th October 2014, the Special Land Acquisition Officer purportedly made an award under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.

Landowners filed writ petitions challenging the award, arguing it was time-barred and backdated. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, ruled in favor of the landowners, setting aside the award and directing an inquiry against the concerned officers. The High Court held that the award should have been passed within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, i.e., before 8th August 2014.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, allowed the writ petitions filed by the landowners, quashing the award dated 30th October 2014. The High Court held that the award was time-barred under Section 11A of the 1894 Act, which required the award to be passed within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6. The High Court also concluded that the award was backdated, based on discrepancies in the documents. The High Court directed the State of Maharashtra to conduct an inquiry against the Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Bhandara.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act), and its interplay with Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the 1894 Act).

Section 11A of the 1894 Act: This section stipulates that an award must be made within two years from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 6. If no award is made within this period, the acquisition proceedings lapse.

“11A. Period within which an award shall be made
(1) The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse…”

Section 24 of the 2013 Act: This section addresses the status of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act. Section 24(1)(a) states that where no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act has been made, all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply.

“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 (1 of 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;…”

Section 25 of the 2013 Act: This section mandates that the Collector must make an award within twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under Section 19 of the 2013 Act. Failure to do so results in the lapse of the acquisition proceedings.

“25. Period within which an award shall be made. –
The Collector shall make an award within a period of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration under section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:…”

Section 114 of the 2013 Act: This section repeals the 1894 Act but states that the repeal does not affect the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, except as otherwise provided in the 2013 Act.

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897: This section provides for the effect of repeal of any statute, ensuring that rights, privileges, obligations, and legal proceedings initiated under the repealed Act are not affected, unless a different intention appears.

The Supreme Court had to determine whether the two-year period under Section 11A of the 1894 Act or the twelve-month period under Section 25 of the 2013 Act would apply to awards made under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Executive Engineer):

• The award was made on 30th October 2014, within twelve months of the 2013 Act coming into force on 1st January 2014.
• The High Court erred in quashing the award based on prima facie findings of backdating, especially given the public importance of the project.
• The High Court failed to consider the State’s affidavit clarifying that the date of communication from the Town Planning Department was wrongly mentioned in the award as 11th November 2014 instead of 26th September 2014.
• The High Court also overlooked the Divisional Commissioner’s approval of the draft award on 8th October 2014.
• The interim stay order of the High Court should have been considered while calculating the time limit.
• The State argued that neither Section 11A of the 1894 Act nor Section 25 of the 2013 Act would apply, leading to no time period for making an award under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.

Respondent’s Arguments (Landowners):

• The award was not made within two years from the date of declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, as required by Section 11A of the 1894 Act, and hence the acquisition proceedings had lapsed.
• The award was backdated, as evidenced by the reference to a communication dated 11th November 2014 from the Town Planning Department in the award itself.
• The roznama (daily record) was not maintained by the Special Land Acquisition Officer after 6th May 2014, indicating the award was not made on 30th October 2014.
• The landowners received a certified copy of the award only on 6th May 2015.
• The landowners relied on Rule 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement (Maharashtra) Rules, 2014, to argue that only Sections 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act apply, excluding the limitation period under Section 25 of the 2013 Act.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the two-year period specified under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, will apply even after the repeal of the 1894 Act, or the twelve-month period specified in Section 25 of the 2013 Act will apply for the awards made under clause (a) of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act?
2. Whether the award dated 30th October 2014 is within the permissible time limit or whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed?
3. Whether the award claimed to have been passed on 30th October 2014 is backdated and whether the date has been changed by manipulating the award?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various authorities to interpret the provisions of the 2013 Act and the 1894 Act. These authorities are categorized below based on the legal point they address:

Interpretation of “Relating To”

• The State Wakf Board, Madras represented by its Secretary v. Abdul Azeez Sahib & Ors., AIR 1968 Madras 79 – This case was used to show that the expressions “relating to” or “in relation to” are words of comprehensiveness which may have a direct as well as indirect significance depending on the context.
• Navin Chemicals Mfg. and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, (1993) 4 SCC 320 – This case was used to show that the phrase ‘in relation to’ can have a narrower meaning of direct and proximate relationship depending on the context.
• Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited v. Amit Gupta and Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 194 – This case was used to show that several cases assign a wider import to the expression ‘relating to’ in view of the contextual background.
• Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Company and Another, (1984) 4 SCC 679 – This case was used to show that the term ‘in relation to’, when used in the context of an arbitration clause, is of the widest amplitude and content.
• Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain and Others v. Eknath Vithal Ogale, (1995) 2 SCC 665 – This case was used to show that the expression ‘relating to’ in the context of the Small Causes Court Act, 1887 has been held to be comprehensive in nature.
• M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, (1988) 2 SCC 299 – This case was used to show that the expression “in relation to” is a very broad expression which presupposes another subject matter.
• H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior etc. v. Union of India & Anr., (1971) 1 SCC 85 – This case was used to show that the expression “relating to” when used in legislation normally refers to “stand in some relation, to have bearing or concern, to pertain, to refer, to bring into association with or connection with”.

Effect of Stay Orders

• Abhey Ram (D) by LRs. and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 5 SCC 421 – This case was used to define “stay of action or proceedings” in the context of Section 11A of the 1894 Act.
• Indore Development Authority v. Manohar lal and others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 – This case was used to interpret Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and the effect of interim orders.

Limitation Period

• Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another, AIR 1961 SC 1500 – This case was used to determine the date for counting the limitation period, which is the date of communication or when a party is aware of the order.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Period within which an award shall be made.
• Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.
• Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Period within which an award shall be made.
• Section 114 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Repeal and saving.
• Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897: Effect of repeal.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that Section 25 of the 2013 Act applies to awards made under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. The limitation period of twelve months would commence from 1st January 2014. The Court also held that the period during which a court order inhibits action on the part of the authorities is to be excluded while computing the period under Section 25 of the 2013 Act.

The Court found that the High Court had erred in not excluding the period during which the stay order was in operation. After excluding 79 days, the award, even if backdated, was made within the extended period. The Court, therefore, set aside the High Court’s judgment, holding that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed and the award was valid.

The Court directed the State of Maharashtra to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of manipulation and backdating of the award.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on the authorities to interpret the provisions of the 2013 Act and the 1894 Act. The Court used the cases on interpretation of “relating to” to give a wider meaning to the phrase “all the provisions relating to determination of compensation” to include Section 25 of the 2013 Act. The Court used the cases on stay orders to conclude that the period during which the High Court had stayed the notification should be excluded while calculating the time limit.

• The State Wakf Board, Madras v. Abdul Azeez Sahib: Used to show the comprehensive nature of “relating to”.
• Navin Chemicals Mfg. v. Collector of Customs: Used to show that the phrase ‘in relation to’ can have a narrower meaning depending on the context, but in this case, it should be given a wider meaning.
• Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam v. Amit Gupta: Used to show that the expression ‘relating to’ can have a wider import in view of the contextual background.
• Renusagar Power Co. v. General Electric Co.: Used to show that the term ‘in relation to’ has a wide amplitude in the context of an arbitration clause.
• Mansukhlal Dhanraj Jain v. Eknath Vithal Ogale: Used to show that the expression ‘relating to’ is comprehensive in nature.
• M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India: Used to show that the expression “in relation to” is a very broad expression.
• H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India: Used to show that the expression “relating to” has a wide meaning in legislation.
• Abhey Ram v. Union of India: Used to define “stay of action or proceedings” in the context of Section 11A of the 1894 Act.
• Indore Development Authority v. Manohar lal: Used to interpret Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and the effect of interim orders, and to apply the same principles to Section 25 of the 2013 Act.
• Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer: Used to determine the date for counting the limitation period.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to give effect to the legislative intent behind the 2013 Act, which was to ensure fair compensation to landowners while avoiding unnecessary delays in land acquisition. The Court emphasized that the provisions of the 2013 Act should be interpreted in a manner that promotes justice and avoids absurd or anomalous results.

The Court was also mindful of the practical difficulties that would arise if the two-year period under Section 11A of the 1894 Act were to apply. The Court observed that it would be impossible to make an award under the 2013 Act if the proceedings were deemed to have lapsed under Section 11A of the 1894 Act. Such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, which was to ensure that land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act could be carried forward under the 2013 Act.

The Court also noted that the 2013 Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide better compensation and rehabilitation to landowners. The Court was of the view that the provisions of the 2013 Act should be interpreted in a way that furthers this objective.

The Court also considered the fact that the High Court had issued a stay order, which had prevented the authorities from making an award for a certain period. The Court held that it would be unjust to hold the authorities responsible for the delay caused by the stay order.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of the judgment is that when land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are carried forward under Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the time limit for making an award is governed by Section 25 of the 2013 Act. This means that the award must be made within twelve months from the date the 2013 Act came into force (i.e., 1st January 2014). The period during which a court order inhibits action on the part of the authorities is to be excluded while computing the period under Section 25 of the 2013 Act.

Obiter Dicta

The Supreme Court made the following obiter dicta:

• The Court observed that the phrase “all provisions relating to determination of compensation” in Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act should be interpreted broadly to include the time limit for making an award under Section 25 of the 2013 Act.
• The Court emphasized that the 2013 Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide better compensation and rehabilitation to landowners and should be interpreted in a way that furthers this objective.
• The Court noted that it would be unjust to hold the authorities responsible for the delay caused by a stay order issued by a court.
• The Court directed the State of Maharashtra to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of manipulation and backdating of the award, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in land acquisition proceedings.

Flowchart of the Decision-Making Process