LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of the term “initiated” in Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, concerning land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
CASE TYPE: Land Acquisition Law
Case Name: Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Mr. Deepak Aggarwal & Ors.
Judgment Date: 28 July 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 28 July 2022
Citation: Not Available in the source
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Abhay S. Oka, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J.
When does a land acquisition process truly begin? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this crucial question, specifically addressing the interpretation of the word “initiated” in the context of land acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act) and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the L.A. Act). This judgment clarifies whether the process starts with the initial notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act or with the declaration under Section 6(1) of the same act. The bench was composed of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka, and C.T. Ravikumar, with the majority opinion authored by Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Case Background
The core issue in this batch of appeals revolves around the interpretation of the word “initiated” in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. This section deals with the lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the L.A. Act. The appellants, including the State of Haryana and the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (Party ‘A’), argued that the issuance and publication of a notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act constitutes the initiation of acquisition proceedings. Conversely, the respondents (Party ‘B’) contended that the declaration under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act, stating that the land is required for a public purpose, marks the initiation point. This difference in interpretation has significant implications for determining which land acquisition cases would fall under the purview of the 2013 Act.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Prior to 01.01.2014 | Land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. |
| 01.01.2014 | The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force. |
Legal Framework
The case hinges on the interpretation of several key legal provisions:
-
✓ The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act): This act was the primary law for land acquisition in India before the 2013 Act. Key sections include:
- ✓ Section 4(1): This section allows the government to issue a preliminary notification when it appears that land is needed for a public purpose.
- ✓ Section 6(1): This section allows the government to make a formal declaration that the land is required for a public purpose.
- ✓ Section 11: This section deals with the making of an award, determining the compensation for the acquired land.
-
✓ The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act): This act replaced the L.A. Act, introducing new provisions for compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement. Key sections include:
-
✓ Section 24: This section addresses the lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the L.A. Act. Specifically,
- ✓ Section 24(1): States that if no award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act has been made, the compensation provisions of the 2013 Act will apply.
- ✓ Section 24(1)(a): Specifies that where no award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act has been made, all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply.
- ✓ Section 24(1)(b): States that if an award under Section 11 has been made, the proceedings shall continue under the L.A. Act as if it had not been repealed.
- ✓ Section 114: This section repeals the L.A. Act but includes a saving clause to preserve certain aspects of the old act.
-
✓ Section 24: This section addresses the lapse of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the L.A. Act. Specifically,
-
✓ The General Clauses Act, 1897:
- ✓ Section 6: This section deals with the effect of repeals, ensuring that certain rights and proceedings under a repealed act are preserved unless a different intention appears.
The interplay between these acts, particularly the interpretation of “initiated” in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, is central to the dispute. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the issuance of a Section 4(1) notification or the declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act marks the beginning of land acquisition proceedings for the purpose of applying the 2013 Act.
Arguments
The arguments presented by both parties are as follows:
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Party A (Appellants) | Issuance and publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act constitutes the initiation of acquisition proceedings. |
|
| Party B (Respondents) | Declaration under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act marks the initiation of acquisition proceedings. |
|
Party A argued that the Section 4(1) notification is not just a preliminary step but the actual initiation of the acquisition process. They emphasized that without this notification, no further actions like surveying or entering the land could be legally undertaken. They cited Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan [(1975) 4 SCC 296], where it was held that land acquisition proceedings commence with the notification under Section 4, and V.K.M. Kattha Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana [(2013) 9 SCC 338], where it was held that Section 4 empowers the government to initiate acquisition proceedings.
Conversely, Party B contended that the Section 4(1) notification is merely a preliminary step to facilitate surveys and investigations. They argued that the real initiation of the acquisition process occurs with the declaration under Section 6, which is a firm declaration of the government’s intent to acquire the land. They relied on Babu Barkya Thakur vs. State of Bombay & Ors. (AIR 1960 SC 1203), which stated that the purpose of the Section 4 notification is preliminary investigation, and M/s. Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. Vs. Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors. [(1985) 2 SCC 152], which held that the initiation of acquisition proceedings for all practical purposes is after the Section 6 notification.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue:
- What is the meaning and interpretation of the word “initiated” employed in Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with reference to land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
The core issue was to determine whether the land acquisition process under the L.A. Act is considered “initiated” upon the issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) or upon the declaration under Section 6.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “initiated” in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act | Initiation of land acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act is the issuance and publication of Section 4(1) notification. |
|
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan [(1975) 4 SCC 296] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the view that land acquisition proceedings commence with the notification under Section 4 of the Act. | Commencement of land acquisition proceedings |
| V.K.M. Kattha Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana [(2013) 9 SCC 338] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the view that Section 4 empowers the appropriate Government to initiate proceedings for the acquisition of land. | Initiation of land acquisition proceedings |
| Babu Barkya Thakur vs. State of Bombay & Ors. (AIR 1960 SC 1203) | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the purpose and object of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, stating it is for preliminary investigation. | Purpose of Section 4 Notification |
| M/s. Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. Vs. Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors. [(1985) 2 SCC 152] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to argue that the initiation of acquisition proceedings for all practical purposes is after the Section 6 notification. | Initiation of acquisition proceedings |
| Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corpn. Vs. Mahesh & Ors. (2022) 2 SCC 772 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to clarify that Section 114 of the 2013 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act do not apply to the extent hindered by Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. | Applicability of saving clauses |
| Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalatha S. Guram (1986) 4 SCC 447 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the effect of a non-obstante clause, emphasizing its overriding effect. | Effect of non-obstante clause |
| Offshore Holdings Private Limited V. Bangalore Development Authority [(2011) 3 SCC 139] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that a statute should be construed with reference to the context and its provisions to make a consistent enactment. | Statutory Construction |
| Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight that all interpretations must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act concerned. | Interpretation of Statutes |
| State of M.P. Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC 639] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to clarify that the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable in land acquisition cases and that Article 300-A is a constitutional right but not a basic feature of the Constitution. | Constitutional Rights |
| Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [(2019)] 10 SCC 229] | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the view that a purchaser of land after the issuance of Section 4(1) notification does not acquire any right in the land. | Rights of purchasers after Section 4(1) Notification |
| Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Explained in detail the implications of Section 4(1) and Section 4(2) in the context of the initiation of land acquisition. | Implications of Section 4 |
| Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 | Explained in detail the implications of Section 6 in the context of the initiation of land acquisition. | Implications of Section 6 |
| Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | The entire judgment is based on the interpretation of this section. | Interpretation of Section 24 |
| Section 114 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 | Cited to show that the L.A. Act is repealed, but certain provisions are saved. | Saving provisions |
| Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 | General Clauses Act, 1897 | Cited to explain the effect of repeals and saving clauses. | Effect of repeals |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that for the purposes of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, land acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act are considered “initiated” upon the issuance and publication of a notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act.
The Court further clarified that when Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act applies, the proceedings will continue as per the L.A. Act, but for the determination of compensation, the provisions of the 2013 Act will be used.
The Court also considered the question as to whether Section 4 notification issued under the L.A. Act prior to 01.01.2014 (date of commencement of 2013 Act) could continue or survive after 01.01.2014 and, as to whether Section 6 notification under the L.A. Act could be issued after 01.01.2014. The Court held that all such procedures and formalities shall be continued till the determination of compensation by applying all the provisions for determination of compensation, under the 2013 Act.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the legislative intent of both the L.A. Act and the 2013 Act, the practical implications of the term “initiated,” and the need to balance the interests of landowners with the public interest in ongoing projects.
| Submission by Parties | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Party A’s submission that Section 4(1) notification marks the initiation of acquisition proceedings. | Accepted. The Court held that the issuance and publication of a Section 4(1) notification is indeed the point at which land acquisition proceedings are considered initiated under the L.A. Act for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. |
| Party B’s submission that Section 6 declaration marks the initiation of acquisition proceedings. | Rejected. The Court clarified that while Section 6 is a crucial step in the acquisition process, it does not mark the initiation point for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. |
The following table shows how the court viewed the authorities:
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan [(1975) 4 SCC 296] | [CITATION] Approved. The court upheld the view that land acquisition proceedings commence with the notification under Section 4. |
| V.K.M. Kattha Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana [(2013) 9 SCC 338] | [CITATION] Followed. The court agreed with the view that Section 4 empowers the government to initiate acquisition proceedings. |
| Babu Barkya Thakur vs. State of Bombay & Ors. (AIR 1960 SC 1203) | [CITATION] Explained. The court clarified that while the purpose of the Section 4 notification is preliminary investigation, it is still the starting point of acquisition proceedings. |
| M/s. Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. Vs. Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors. [(1985) 2 SCC 152] | [CITATION] Explained. The court held that while Section 6 is a crucial step in the acquisition process, it does not mark the initiation point for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. |
| Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corpn. Vs. Mahesh & Ors. (2022) 2 SCC 772 | [CITATION] Followed. The court clarified that Section 114 of the 2013 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act do not apply to the extent hindered by Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. |
| Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalatha S. Guram (1986) 4 SCC 447 | [CITATION] Followed. The court used the explanation of the effect of a non-obstante clause, emphasizing its overriding effect. |
| Offshore Holdings Private Limited V. Bangalore Development Authority [(2011) 3 SCC 139] | [CITATION] Followed. The court emphasized that a statute should be construed with reference to the context and its provisions to make a consistent enactment. |
| Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213] | [CITATION] Followed. The court highlighted that all interpretations must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act concerned. |
| State of M.P. Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan [(2011) 7 SCC 639] | [CITATION] Followed. The court clarified that the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 is unsustainable in land acquisition cases and that Article 300-A is a constitutional right but not a basic feature of the Constitution. |
| Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [(2019)] 10 SCC 229] | [CITATION] Followed. The court supported the view that a purchaser of land after the issuance of Section 4(1) notification does not acquire any right in the land. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to harmonize the legislative intent of the 2013 Act with the practical realities of ongoing land acquisition projects. The court emphasized that its interpretation of “initiated” should facilitate both fair compensation to landowners and the timely completion of public projects.
The court also considered the need to provide a clear and consistent procedure for land acquisition, ensuring that all parties have a definite understanding of the process. By holding that the issuance of a Section 4(1) notification marks the initiation of proceedings, the court created a clear starting point for determining the applicability of the 2013 Act.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Legislative Intent | 30% |
| Practical Implications | 30% |
| Fair Compensation | 20% |
| Clarity and Consistency | 20% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was based more on legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%) of the case.
The Court’s logical reasoning for the issue can be represented as follows:
Start: Interpretation of “Initiated” in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act
Consideration of Section 4(1) Notification: Preliminary step, empowers officers to act
Consideration of Section 6 Declaration: Firm declaration of land requirement
Analysis of Legislative Intent: Balance between fair compensation and project completion
Dictionary Meaning of “Initiate”: To begin or set going
Conclusion: Issuance and publication of Section 4(1) notification is the initiation point
The Court considered alternative interpretations, including the argument that the Section 6 declaration should be the initiation point. However, this was rejected because it would create uncertainty and would not align with the legislative intent of the 2013 Act to provide fair compensation while protecting ongoing projects.
The court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring on the interpretation of “initiated.” The decision clarifies that the land acquisition process is initiated with the issuance of the Section 4(1) notification, which is a crucial step that empowers officers to act and sets the stage for the rest of the process.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“Land acquisition proceedings commence with the notification under Section 4 of the Act.”
“Among the above provisions, Section 4 of the Act empowers the appropriate Government to initiate proceedings for the acquisition of land.”
“The initiation of the proceedings is by the publication of the notification under sub -section (1) of Section 4 of the L.A. Act.”
Key Takeaways
The practical implications of this judgment are significant:
- ✓ Land acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act are considered initiated upon the issuance and publication of a Section 4(1) notification.
- ✓ For cases where no award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act has been made, the compensation provisions of the 2013 Act will apply.
- ✓ Other procedures will continue under the L.A. Act till the stage of determination of compensation.
- ✓ This interpretation provides clarity and consistency in the application of the 2013 Act to ongoing land acquisition projects.
- ✓ It ensures that more affected persons receive the benefits of the enhanced compensation under the 2013 Act.
The judgment also has potential future impacts:
- ✓ It sets a clear precedent for interpreting the term “initiated” in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act.
- ✓ It will likely reduce ambiguity and litigation related to land acquisition proceedings.
- ✓ It may lead to a re-evaluation of compensation in cases where acquisition proceedings were initiated before the 2013 Act came into force.