INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SHAILENDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 08-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 78 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
1
[2018] 2 S.C.R. 1
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
 v.
SHAILENDRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 20982 of  2017)
FEBRUARY  08, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:
Legislative intendment of the enactment – Held: The Act
addresses the concern of farmers and of those whose livelihood is
dependent upon the land being acquired, while at the same time
facilitating land acquisition for myriad reasons, including
urbanization, rural electrification et al., in a timely and transparent
manner. (Per majority)
s.24(1) – Word ‘paid’ –  Connotation of – Held: The word
‘paid’ in s.24 of the Act of 2013 has the same meaning as ‘tender of
payment’ in s.31(1) of the Act of 1894 – They carry the same meaning
– The expression ‘deposited’ in s.31(2) is not included in the
expressions ‘paid’ in s.24 of the Act of 2013 or in ‘tender of payment’
used in s.31(1) of the Act of 1894 – The words ‘paid’/tender’ and
‘deposited’ are different expressions and carry different meanings
within their fold – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.31(1), (2).  (Per
majority)
s.24(2) – Failure to deposit compensation, effect – Non-
deposit of compensation in court under s.31(2) of the Act of 1894
does not result in a lapse of acquisition under s.24(2) of the Act of
2013 – Due to the failure of deposit in court, the only consequence
at the most in appropriate cases may be of a higher rate of interest
on compensation as envisaged under s.34 of the Act of 1894 and
not lapse of acquisition – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – s.31(2).
(Per majority)
s.24(2) – Protection under, when there is refusal to accept
compensation – Once the amount of compensation has been
unconditionally tendered and it is refused, that would amount to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
payment and the obligation under s.31(1) stands discharged and
that amounts to discharge of obligation of payment under s.24(2)
of the Act of 2013 also and it is not open to the person who has
refused to accept compensation, to urge that since it has not been
deposited in court, acquisition has lapsed –  Claimants/landowners
after refusal, cannot take advantage of their own wrong and seek
protection under the provisions of s.24(2) – Land Acquisition Act,
1894 – s.31(1). (Per majority)
s.24(2) – Limitation – Exclusion of period spent in litigation
– Held: Provisions of s.24(2) do not intend to cover the period
spent during litigation and when the authorities have been disabled
to act under s.24(2) due to the final or interim order of a court or
otherwise, such period has to be excluded from the period of five
years as provided in s.24(2) of the Act of 2013 – There is no
conscious omission in s.24(2) for the exclusion of a period of the
interim order.  (Per majority)
s.24(1) – Interpretation of – Held: When award under the
1894 Act has not been passed, then as per s.24(1)(a) of the Act
2013, all the provisions of the Act of 2013 relating to determination
of compensation shall apply – Where, however, an award under
s.11 has been made then such proceedings shall continue as per
s.24(1)(b) of the Act 2013, under the Act of 1894 as if the said Act
has not been repealed – However, in case physical possession of
the land has not been taken, or the compensation has not been
paid, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed; and, in case
of compensation with respect to a majority of landholdings has not
been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all
beneficiaries i.e. landowners shall be entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013 – Consequence
of non-deposit of the amount, with respect to the majority of land
holdings, in the account of the beneficiaries, is that the acquisition
would not lapse, and only compensation under the new Act would
be payable. (Per majority)
s.24(2) – Interpretation of – Expression ‘paid/deposit’ –
Meaning of – Under the main part of s.24(2), the expression
“compensation has not been paid” has been used – The word
“deposited” is missing from main part of s.24(2), and it is only used
in the proviso – The Legislature has used two different expressions
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
to carry, respectively different meanings; and, the proviso operates
in a different field, where the acquisition would not lapse – The
proviso is not attracted where compensation has been paid –

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