LexDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus VIRENDER LAL BAHRI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
VIRENDER LAL BAHRI & ORS.
(SLP (C ) No. 37375 of 2016)
FEBRUARY 27, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:
s. 24 Proviso – Whether the proviso governs s. 24(1)(b) or s.
24(2) – Held: The proviso governs s. 24(1)(b) and not s. 24 (2) –
However the question is referred to larger Bench.
Referring the matter to larger Bench, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 24(1) and (2) Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 deal with different subjects. Section
24(1) deals with compensation whereas Section 24(2) deals with
lapsing of the acquisition itself. There are many cogent reasons
as to why the proviso in Section 24 is really a proviso to Section
24(1)(b) and not to Section 24(2). [Para 9][480-C, D]
2.1 Firstly, the scheme of Section 24(1) is to provide
enhanced compensation under the 2013 Act even in cases where
a Section 4 notification has been made under a repealed statute,
namely, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but where no award has
been pronounced on 01.01.2014, when the 2013 Act comes into
force. This is clear from a reading of Section 24(1)(a). Section
24(1)(b) then goes on to state that where an award has been made
under the repealed Act prior to 01.01.2014, then compensation
and all other provisions of the repealed Act will continue to apply
to such award. To this, an exception has been carved out by the
proviso, which states that even in such cases where compensation
in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited
in the account of the beneficiaries, then all beneficiaries specified
in Section 4 notification shall be entitled to compensation under
the 2013 Act. Read thus, the proviso is an exception to Section
[2019] 4 S.C.R. 469
469
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
24(1)(b) in cases where a Section 4 notification covers many land
holdings in the majority of which, compensation has not yet been
deposited, making it clear, therefore, that compensation not
having been paid to substantially all such persons, the more
beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act should apply. Read thus,
there is no inconsistency or repugnancy between the proviso and
Section 24(1)(b) of the Act. [Para 10][480-D-G]
2.2 If, on the other hand, the proviso is read as a proviso to
Section 24(2), many anomalies arise. Firstly, for sub-section (2)
of Section 24 to apply, (i) the award under Section 11 of the 1894
Act should have been made five years or more prior to the
commencement of the Act; and (ii) physical possession of the
land has not been taken or compensation has not been paid.
[Para 11][480-H; 481-A-C]
3. Secondly, if read as a proviso to Section 24(2), arbitrary
results would ensue, rendering the proviso arbitrary, and hence,
liable to be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. [Para 12][483-D]
4. Thirdly, if converse case is taken where an award is made
in respect of a large number of lands covered by the same Section
4 notification, and compensation in respect of a majority of land
holdings has been deposited. Can it then be said that in such a
case, lapsing will take place because the proviso in such a case
will not apply? Obviously, therefore, whether compensation in
respect of a majority of land holdings has or has not been deposited
would have no bearing on whether lapsing does or does not take
place under a totally independent provision, namely, Section 24(2).
[Para 13][483-G, H; 484-A]
5. Fourthly, the language of the proviso makes it clear that
it does not refer to the award spoken of in Section 24(2) for two
reasons. First, the expression, “an award has been made” in the
proviso cannot be equated to “such award has been made”. Also,
the words “an award” being made “five years or more prior to
the commencement of this Act” are conspicuous by their absence
in the proviso. Reading these words in, when the legislature has
chosen not to add them, would do violence to the literal language
and plain meaning of the proviso. However, if the proviso is read
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
as a proviso to Section 24(1)(b), it would be perfectly compatible
with all awards that are made under Section 11, whether within or
beyond five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act.
[Para 14][484-B, C]
6. The 2013 Act iExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.