INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 06-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Reference answered

Cited by 95 judgment(s) · cites 147 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
   [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1
1
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC.
(S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9036-9038 of 2016)
MARCH 06, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN,
M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Legislative
history of the Act of 2013 – Purpose of its enactment – Salient
features – Departure from old Land Acquisition Act in 2013 Act
relating to Social Impact Assessment, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Scheme – Discussed .
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
Twin requirement for the lapse – Firstly, physical possession has
not been taken and secondly compensation has not been paid –
Whether the conditions are cumulative i.e. both are to be fulfilled
for lapsing of acquisition proceedings or the conditions are in
alternative (“either/or”) – Held: s.24(2) of the Act of 2013 deals
with a situation only where the award has been made five years or
more before the commencement of the Act, but physical possession
of the land has not been taken, nor compensation has been paid –
As regards the collation of the words used in s.24(2), two negative
conditions have been prescribed – General rule of statutory
interpretation of positive and negative conditions are that positive
conditions separated by ‘or’ are read in the alternative but negative
conditions connected by ‘or’ are construed as cumulative and ‘or’
is read as ‘nor’ or ‘and’ i.e. the expression ‘or’ has to be read as
conjunctive and conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled –
Thus, the word ‘or’ used in s.24(2) between possession and
compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’ – This would mean
that the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under s.24(2)
takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or
more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013, the possession of
land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid – Thus,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
even if one condition is satisfied, there is no lapse – Interpretation
of statutes.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
Interpreting “or” under s.24(2) of the Act of 2013 disjunctively –
Effect of – Held: It would result in an anomalous situation, because,
once compensation has been paid to the landowner, there is no
provision for its refund – In case physical possession is with the
landowner; and compensation has been paid, there is no provision
in the Act for disgorging out the benefit of compensation – In the
absence of any provision for refund in the Act of 2013, the State
cannot recover compensation paid – The landowner would be
unjustly enriched – This could never have been the legislative intent
of enacting s.24(2) of the Act of 2013 – The principle of restitution,
unless provided in the Act, cannot be resorted to by the authorities
on their own – Absence of provision for refund in the Act of 2013
reinforces conclusion that the word “or” has to be read as
conjunctively and has to be read as “and” – Doctrine of unjust
enrichment and principle of restitution.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) –
Purpose of – Held: To punish acquiring authority for its lethargy in
not taking physical possession nor paying compensation after
making award five years or more before commencement of Act of
2013 in pending proceedings providing they would lapse.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24 – Vested
right under – Held: s.24 of the Act of 2013 does not intend to take
away vested rights – This is because there is no specific provision
taking away or divesting title to the land, which had originally vested
with the State, or divesting the title or interest of beneficiaries or
third-party transferees of such land which they had lawfully
acquired, through sales or transfers.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: proviso to
s.24(2) – Whether proviso is part of s.24(2) or s.24(1)(b) – Held:
The proviso is part of the scheme of s.24(2) – The entire provision
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
of s.24(2), including the proviso, operates when there is inaction
for a peri

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