HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. versus MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 17 S.C.R. 1079 · Decided: 28-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1079
   [2022] 17 S.C.R. 1079
1079
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
v.
MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16631-16632 of 2018)
JULY 28, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA AND
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(1)–
”initiated” – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.4 –Meaning and
interpretation of”initiated” in s.24(1) of the 2013 Act, with reference
to land acquisition proceedings under the L.A Act – Held: For the
purposes of sub-section (1) of s.24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings
under the L.A. Act shall be treated as initiated on publication of a
notification under sub-section (1) of s.4 of the L.A. Act –Further,
when Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of s.24 of the 2013 Act is
applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the L.A. Act –
However, only for the determination of compensation amount, the
provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied – Interpretation of
Statutes –Purposive construction.
Directing the appeals to be listed before appropriate Bench
for disposal on merits, the Court
HELD : 1.1 A perusal of Section 24 would reveal that
passing of an Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act is the key
factor in deciding the manner and nature of continuance of the
land acquisition proceedings. A scanning of Section 24(1)(a) would
reveal that if land acquisition proceeding was initiated under the
L.A. Act, but no award was passed under Section 11 thereof, then,
all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the “determination of
compensation” would apply. At the same time, if upon initiation
of acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act, an award under
Section 11 of the L.A. Act was passed, then, such proceedings
shall continue under the provisions of the L.A. Act itself, as if the
same had not been repealed. [Para 8][1093-C-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
1.2 The legislative intention behind bringing up the 2013
Act was to have a unified enactment facilitating land acquisition
for industrialization, infrastructure and urbanization projects in a
timely and transparent manner and at the same time, providing
for just and fair compensation, to make adequate provision for
rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for affected persons
and their families. The word ‘initiated’ has to be construed with a
view to implement the aforesaid twin purposes of providing fair
and just compensation and facilitating acquisition of land for
industrialization, infrastructure and urbanization projects. The
impact of ‘initiation’ of land acquisition proceedings and its
culmination in an award under Section 11 of the L.A Act and also
non-culmination in such an award has already been referred to.
For a proper and purposive construction of the word ‘initiated’,
in the contextual situation it will not be inappropriate to look into
the legislative history of Section 24 of the 2013 Act as well, as
explained in the written submission filed on behalf of HSIIDC/
STATE/COMMITTEE dated 11.04.2022. However, it is not
deemed necessary to refer to or to deal with it, in detail. In short,
it is stated therein that the events happened prior to the drafting
of Section 24, as it exists on the statute book today, is a safe
guide to cull out the legislative intent in formulating Section 24
in the 2013 Act, by the legislature. Furthermore, it is stated
therein that the legislature was fully aware of the fact that lands
acquired under the L.A. Act were already being used for several
public purposes and more particularly for infrastructural projects
and large number of acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act,
relating large number of public projects for various public
purposes, are in progress at various stages. Hence, lapsing of
everything would be seriously detrimental to public interest and
at the same time, the interest of land holders is also taken into
account. The consideration of all such relevant aspects and the
pros and cons made the legislature to come up with a balancing
provision under Section 24(1)(a) and clauses therein, in the 2013
Act. This was incorporated as a balancing provision for controlling
the extent of retrospectivity and for curtailing the erosion of rights
of land holders. [Paras 22-24][1098-D-E; 1099-A-C]
Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat (1987) 1
SCC 213 : [1987] 1 SCR 562 – relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1081
1.3 Ri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.