THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GOSIKHURD PROJECT AMBADI, BHANDARA, MAHARASHTRA VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION versus MAHESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1123 · Decided: 10-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1123
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GOSIKHURD PROJECT
AMBADI, BHANDARA, MAHARASHTRA VIDARBHA
IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
v.
MAHESH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6673-6674 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 10, 2021
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:
ss. 25 and 24(1)(a) – Interpretation of s. 24(1)(a) –
Determination of period within which an award to be made – Held:
s. 11A of the 1894 Act and s. 25 of the 2013 Act prescribe two
different periods of limitation – If two year period for making an
award in terms of s.11A of the 1894 Act is applied to awards made
u/s. 24(1)(a), it may lead to practical absurdities and anomalies –
This would mitigate against the legislative intent behind prescription
of time for making of an award in respect of saved acquisition
proceedings initiated under the repealed 1894 Act – Therefore to
give effect and making the underlying intention of the Parliament,
the limitation for passing/making of an award u/s. 24(1)(a) would
be in terms of s. 25, which would commence from 01.01.2014, that
is, the date when the 2013 Act came into force – Awards passed u/s.
24(1)(a) would be valid if made within twelve months from
01.01.2014, subject to the caveat that a declaration which has
lapsed in terms of s.11A of the 1894 Act before or on 31.12.2013
would not get revived – Thus, the choice is exercised to arrive at a
just, fair and harmonious construction consistent with the legislative
intent – Rational approach so as to further the object and purpose
of ss.24 and 26 to 30 is required – On facts, publication of
declaration for land acquisition u/s. 6 of the 1894 Act, on 08.08.12
– On 01.01.14, the Act of 2013came into force and 1894 Act stood
repealed – On 30.10.14, award purportedly made in terms of s.
24(1)(a) – Writ petitions by landowners challenging the award –
High Court set aside the award holding that the acquisition
proceeding had lapsed since in terms of s. 11A award ought to have
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 1123
1123
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
been passed within two years from the date of declaration-before
08.08.14; and that the award purportedly made on 30.10.14 was
backdated – Award purportedly dated 30.08.2014, was in any case
duly made on or before the extended date of 20.03.2015 – Period
of 79 days from 26.05.2014 when the High Court stayed operation
of the notification dated 19.03.2014, till the new notification dated
13.08.2014 was issued has to be excluded –– Thus, the award is
legal and valid and order passed by the High Court is set aside –
Land Acquisition Act 1894.
ss. 25, 24(1)(a) and 30 – Compensation u/s. 24(1)(a) –
Determination of – Explained.
s.24(1)(a) and 25 –Words “all the provisions relating to
determination of compensation” in s. 24(1)(a) – Meaning of – Held:
It would be read as including the period of limitation specified in s.
25 of the 2013 Act – Word ‘all’ and the expression “relating to”
used in s. 25 of the 2013 Act, are to be given a wide meaning to
ensnare the legislative intent – Words and phrases.
s. 24(1) – Interpretation of – Constitution Bench decision in
Indore Development Authority’s case held that the 2013 Act operates
prospectively, and that s. 114 of the 2013 Act effects a repeal but
with certain savings, in accordance with s. 24 – Thus, the acquisition
proceedings are preserved under the 1894 Act till the stage of making
of the award – Where an award is not made, the provisions relating
to determination of compensation under the 2013 Act would apply;
where the award is made, proceedings would continue under the
provisions of the 1894 Act as if the said Act has not been repealed.
s. 24(2) – Interpretation of – Decision in Indore Development
Authority’s case holding that where proceedings for acquisition had
been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award u/s. 11 of the 1894
Act had been made, the provisions of the 2013 Act would apply
limited to determination of compensation – Where, however, an
award had been made under the 1894 Act, s. 24(1)(b) protects the
vested rights of the parties – 2013 Act provides for higher
compensation along with provisions for rehabilitation, which should
not be taken away – Furthermore, full effect has to be given to the
provisions contained in s. 24 as it is not for the court to legislate –
Courts can and do, in appropriate cases, clear ambiguity in
legislations.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1125
L

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