LexRATTAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 13 S.C.R. 1221 RATIANSINGH v. UNION OF INDIAANDANR. (I.A. N0.4 IN Civil Appeal No. 2851of2009) DECEMBER 08, 2015 A B [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] C Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2) -Applicability of- To the land acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Held: The acquisition proceedings 0 shall be deemed to have lapsed, where passing of award is established, the award predates the commencement of the 2013 Act by at least five years and possession is found not to have been taken or compensation not paid, then s. 24(2) would be applicable - In the present case, since the above E requirements are made out, hence s. 24(2) comes into operation in favour of landowners-Acquisition is deemed to have lapsed - Authorities concerned may initiate fresh acquisition proceedings in accordance with provisions of 2013Act. F Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - ss.11 and 31-34 - Compensation- Payment of- When complete- Held: Mode and manner for payment of compensation are prescribed u/ ss.31-34 - The Collector can only act in the manner so G provided- Thus compensation can be regarded as paid, if it has literally been paid to the person interested or after being offered to such person, has been deposited in the Court - Deposit of the award in a Government Treasury would not amount to compensation being paid to the person interested. H 1221 1222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 13 S.C.R. A Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Any determination under Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 B must proceed sequentially. First, the factum of an Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must be clearly established. The said Award must predate the commencement of the Act, i.e., 1.1.2014, by at least five years, i.e., the Award must have been passed on or C before 1.1.2009. This having been established, if possession is found to not have been taken, or compensation not paid, then the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Thereafter, the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, may reinitiate acquisition D proceedings in respect of the same land, but under the regime of the 2013 Act. [Para 1] [1225-C-E] 2. The procedure, mode and manner for payment of compensation are prescribed in Part V (Sections 31- E 34) of the 1894Act. Section 31(1) of the 1894Act, which enjoins the Collector, on making an Award under Section 11, to tender payment of compensation to persons interested entitled thereto. Section 31 mandates the Collector to make payment of compensation to such F persons unless prevented by one of the contingencies contemplated in sub-section (2), namely (i) the persons interested entitled to compensation do not consent to receive it, (ii) there is no person competent to alienate the land, and (iii) there is dispute as to the title to receive G compensation or as to the apportionment of it. If due to any of these contingencies, the Collector is prevented from making payment of compensation to the persons entitled to compensation, the Collector is required to deposit the compensation in the Court to which H RATTAN SINGH v. UNION OF INDIAANDANR. 1223 reference under Section 18 may be made. The Collector, A with regard to the payment of compensation, can only act in the manner so provided. Thus compensation can be regarded as "paid" if the compensation has literally been paid to the person interested, or after being offered to such person, it has been deposited in the Court. The B deposit of the Award in a Government Treasury would not amount to compensation being paid to the person interested. In the present case, compensation was neither paid to the Appellants nor deposited in the appropriate Court. The retention of it by the Land C Acquisition Collector till such time as the Appellants made applications for it would not amount to compensation being paid to them. [Paras 4, 5] [1227-E- H; 1228-A; 1230-E] Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki 2014 (1) SCR 783 : (2014) 3 SCC 183; Union of India v. Shiv Raj2014 (8) SCR 751 : (2014) 6 SCC 564; Bimla Devi vs. State of Haryana (2014) 6 SCC 583; Competent Automobiles Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 3186; Radiance Fincap (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2015) 8 SCC 544; Rajiv Chau
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.