FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD versus DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 190 · Decided: 20-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 190
190
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
FAIZABAD
v.
DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2915 of 2022)
MAY 20, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 – s.24(1) – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.11 – Whether
in a case where an award u/s.11 of the Act, 1894 could not be
declared by the Authority due to the pendency of the writ petition
and/or the interim stay granted by the High Court, which was filed
by the landowners and consequently as on the date on which the
Act, 2013 came into force, there was no award declared u/s.11 of
the Act, 1894, the original landowners shall be entitled to
compensation determined under sub-section (1) of s.24 of the Act,
2013 – Held: In a case where on the date of commencement of the
Act, 2013, no award has been declared u/s.11 of the Act, 1894, due
to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted
by the Court, such landowners shall not be entitled to the
compensation u/s.24(1) of the Act, 2013 and they shall be entitled
to the compensation only under the Act, 1894 – The landowners
cannot be permitted to take advantage of the interim order obtained
by them due to which the Authority could not declare the award u/
s.11 of the Act, 1894 and thereafter contend that in that view of the
matter, he/they shall be paid the compensation u/s.24(1) of the Act,
2013, under which a higher compensation will be available to them
– The intention of the Parliament while enacting s.24(1) of the Act,
2013 cannot be to give benefit to a litigant, who has obtained a
stay order and because of that the award could not be declared
and thereafter the litigant may be awarded the compensation as per
Act, 2013 – It may even result in discrimination between the
landowners, whose lands have been acquired under the same
notification, which would never have been the intention of the
Parliament.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
191
Land Acquisition – Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 – s.24(1) – Observations made in Indore Development
Authority case summarized – Held: The observations would be aptly
applicable while interpreting and considering s.24(1) of the Act,
2013.
Doctrines / Principles – Principle of Restitution – Discussed
– Held: The principle of restitution is a remedy against unjust
enrichment or unjust benefit – Restitutionary jurisdiction is inherent
in every court, to neutralise the advantage of litigation – Wrongful
gain of frivolous litigation has to be eliminated if the faith of people
in the judiciary has to be sustained – An unsuccessful litigant
(landowner) who had the benefit of an interim order in his favour
(whilst a challenge was made to the land acquisition proceedings)
cannot encash or take advantage of the same on the enforcement
of the Act, 2013 by initially stalling the acquisition process and
later seeking a higher compensation under the provisions of Act,
2013 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 –
Restitutionary jurisdiction.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1. Sub-section 1 of Section 24 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 begins with a non-
obstante clause and it states that notwithstanding anything
contained in the Act, 2013 in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, - (a)
Where no award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894 has been made,
all provisions of the Act, 2013 relating to the determination of
compensation shall apply; or (b) Where an award under Section
11 has been made, such proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the Act, 1894 as if the said Act has not been
repealed. [Para 10.1][207-G-H; 208-A]
1.2. The expression “where no award under Section 11 of
the said Land Acquisition Act has been made” in clause (a) of
sub-section 1 of Section 24 of the Act, 2013 has to be read
FAIZABAD-AYODHYA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, FAIZABAD v.
DR. RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
contextually and not by way of a plain reading. This is because a
land owner who has an interim order of stay of further proceedings
pursuant to the declaration made under
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.