LexSREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 799
SREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION
V.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8700 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]
A
B
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s C
24(2) - Land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act -
Award u/s 11 made on 30. 11. 2006 - Acquisition proceedings
stayed by the court - Effect of 2013 Act on such proceedings
- Held: Though it is not clear as to payment of CC?_mpensation
to the land holders, but the physical possession of the lands D
belonging to the land holders has not been taken by the State
- Five years have elapsed since the making of the award
when the 2013 Act came into force - Thus, the land acquisition
proceedings would lapse in terms of s. 24(2) even if
·proceedings were stayed by the court - s.24(2) does not
E
exclude any period during which Land Acquisition proceeding
might have remained stayed on account of stay or injunction
granted by any court - Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
·
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1 .1. From a plain reading of Section 24 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement A~t, 2013, it
F
is clear that Section· 24(2) does not exclude any period
during which the land acquisition proceeding might have
G
remained stayed on account of stay or injunction granted
by any court. The Legislature has consciously omitted to
extend the period of five years indicated in Section 24(2)
799
H
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 7 S.C.R.
A even if the proceedings had been delayed on account of
an order of stay or injunction granted by a court of law
or for any reason. Such casus omissus cannot be
supplied by the court in view of law on the subject. [Para
9] [807-A-D]
B
Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. v. State of T.N. &
Ors. 2002 (2) SCR 383 : (2002) 3 SCC 533 - referred to.
· 1.2. The Legislature has, in its wisdom, made the
period of five years under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
C absolute and unaffected by any delay in the proceedings
on account of any order of stay by a court. The plain
wordings used by the Legislature are clear and do not
create any ambiguity or conflict. In such a situation, the
court is not required to depart from the literal rule of
D inte:rpretation. Furthermore, the law is trite that when the
main enactment is clear and unambiguous, a proviso can
have no effect so as to exclude from the main enactment
by implication what clearly falls within its express terms.
[Para 10, 11] {807-G-H; 808-E-F]
E
Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co. Ltd. v.
Belwada Municipality AIR 1944 PC 71; C. I. T. v. Inda
Mercantile Bank Ltd. 1959 Suppl. SCR 256 : AIR 1959 SC
713; (2014) 6 sec 564 - referred to.
F
1.3. Though there is lack of clarity whether
compensation has been paid for majority of land
holdings under acquisition or not, there is no dispute that
physical possession of the lands belonging to the
appellants has not been taken by the State or any other
G authority on its behalf and more than five years have
elapsed since the making of the award when the 2013
Act came into force. Therefore, the conditions mentioned
in Section 24(2) are satisfied and the land acquisition
proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed in terms of
H Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. [Para 13] [809-C-E]
SREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION 801
v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand A
Misirimal Solanki & Ors. 2014 (1 ) SCR 783 : (2014) 3 SCC
183 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
2014 (1 ) SCR 783
Referred to
Para 6
2002 (2) SCR 383
Referred to
Para 9
AIR 1944 PC 71
Referred to
Para 11
1959 Suppl. SCR 256 Referred to
Para 11
(2014) 6 sec 564
Referred to
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8700 of 2013
B
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2007 of the
D
High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 714 of 2002
WITH
C.A. Nos. 8701, 8702, 8703 and 8704 of 2013.
R. Basant, Basava Prabhu, S. Patil, Kailash Vasudev, B.
Ragunath, Vijay Kumar, $.P. Sudalaiyandi, K.V. Mohan, V.
Balaji, Sivakumar, Rakesh K. Sharma, Umrao Singh Rawat,
Prasanath P., K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, T. Mohan, C. Kannan,
Asai Thambi, Atul Sharma for the Appellant.
Subramonium Prasad, AAG., B. Balaji, R. Rakesh
Sharma, S. Anand,Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.