[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
[Entire Act]
Union of India - Section
Section 046 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
046.
Statement of Objects and Reasons.-For past several years the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act, 1870, has been under consideration by the Government of India in communication with local Governments.Before the passing of that Act, the valuation of lands, which it was found necessary to take up for the execution of public works, was entirely in the hands of arbitrators, from whose decision there was no appeal. This system led to a lamentable waste of the public money, both because the arbitrators were incompetent, and sometimes, it is to be feared corrupt, and also because the law, as it then stood, laid down no instructions for their guidance in the performance of their duties. This latter defect, among others, was remedied by the Act of 1870, which it is now proposed to amend, and which contains detailed instructions as to the matters which are to be considered, and which are to be neglected, in awards of compensation for lands acquired under its provisions. The Act of 1870 also provided for the abolition of the system under which uncontrolled direction was entrusted to arbitrators; and, in lieu thereof, required the Collector when unable to come to terms with the persons interested in land which it was desired to take up, to refer the difference for the decision of a Civil Court, usually that of the District Judge. In the disposal of such references, the Court is aided by Assessors, and its finding is final if the Judge and one or more of the Assessors agree. If, however, the Judge and the Assessors disagree, an appeal is allowed, which usually lies to the High Court.The Act of 1870 has not, in practice, been found entirely effective for the protection either of the persons interested in lands taken up or of the public purse. The requirement that the Collector shall refer for the decision of the Court every petty difference of opinion as to value, and every case in which any one or perhaps a large number of persons fail to attend before him, has involved in litigation, with all its trouble and delay and expense, a great number of persons whose interest in the land was extremely insignificant. It has, in fact, frequently been the case that the owners of small pieces of land have had to pay Court cost to an amount far exceeding the value of the land itself.On the other hand, the provisions of the Act as to the incidence of costs, the whole of which fall on the Collector if the final award is ever so little in excess of the amount of his tender, are such as to encourage extravagant and speculative claims. The change of altogether escaping the payment of costs is so great, that claimants are in the position of risking very little in order to gain very much and have, therefore, every motive to refuse even liberal offers made by the Collector, and to try their luck by compelling a reference to the Court. Much the same may be said as to the provisions of the existing law regarding the payment of interest. No matter how fair the original offer of the Collector and how groundless the refusal to accept the compensation he has tendered, interest is payable on the amount of the award finally arrived at from the date of the Collector's taking possession of the land. This may be for a period of two or three years, and as interest continues to run until the litigation is finally completed, it is to be advantage of the land owner to protract the proceedings to the utmost. All this costs a very heavy and undeserved burden on the public purse.It is proposed, therefore, to amend the law by making the Collector's award final, unless altered by a decree in a regular suit. Persons interested in land taken up for public works will thus still have the opportunity, if they desire it, of preferring to an authority quite independent of the Collector their claims to more substantial compensation than the Collector has awarded; and will, in all cases, have a further right of appeal to the regular appellate Courts. They will no longer, however, be encouraged to litigate by the feeling that they can hardly lose, but may make a great gain by doing so.This change in the procedure for determining the valuation of land taken up for public works will also render it possible to dispense with the services of the Assessors, who are now supposed to assist the Court. Considering the difficulty, almost throughout the country, of obtaining the services of such Assessors as are really qualified to form a sound opinion on the subject of the valuation of land, it is believed that the proposal to dispense with them, and to leave the matter to the sole arbitrament, first of the Collector, and then of the Judge, will in no way diminish the efficiency of the Courts in enquiries in which the value of lands is in issue. It will certainly tend to shorten litigation and to diminish its expense.Amendment Act 31 of 1962-Statement of Objects and Reasons.-Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, land may be acquired for a public purpose as also for companies. The purposes for which acquisition of land for companies may be made are, however, restricted and they have been specified in section 40(1) of the Act. Such acquisition may be made for obtaining land (a) for the construction of dwelling-houses for workmen or for the provision of amenities directly connected therewith; or (b) for the construction of some work which is likely to prove useful to the public.2. Section 40(1)(b) and section 41 of the Land Acquisition Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of R.L. Aurora v. State of Uttar Pradesh A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 764. The Supreme Court held that land can be acquired for a company under section 40(1)(b) read with section 41 of the Act only when the work to be constructed would be directly useful to the public and the public would be entitled to use the work as of right for its own benefit in accordance with the terms of the agreement. In the various States, land has been acquired for companies engaged in industries which are likely to promote economic development of the country or which are essential to the life of the community. Doubts have arisen as to the validity of such acquisition.3. Some State Governments have represented that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court may have far-reaching consequences in respect of acquisition of land for companies. It is feared that the decision may render planned development of industries extremely difficult and also that there will be danger that the acquisition of land made for companies in the past might be questioned in Courts of law and claims may be made by previous owners whose lands have been acquired for restoration of land or payment of damages. In order to overcome these difficulties, the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962 was promulgated on the 20th July 1962, suitably amending sections 40 and 41 of the Act and also validating all past acquisition of land made for companies.Amendment Act 13 of 1967-Statement of Objects and Reasons.-In acquisition of land for big projects, the practice generally followed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is that a single notification is issued under section 4(1) of the Act which indicates that a particular area of land is needed or is likely to be needed for a public purpose. This is then followed by one or more declarations under section 6 of the Act in respect of the land specified in the aforesaid notification to the effect that such land is needed for a public purpose or for a company, as and when the plans are completed for the various stages of the project, e.g., plant, township and ancillary requirements.2. In their judgment dated 9th February 1966, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, the Supreme Court held that once a declaration under section 6 of the Act is issued, whether it be in respect of a part of the land comprised in the notification under section 4(1) or in respect of the whole of it, the effect of initial notification is exhausted and no further declarations under section 6 of the Act are sustainable. In other words, Government cannot acquire land by means of successive declarations following the notification under section 4(1) in respect of a particular area. The Supreme Court has construed the acts done under sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act as part and parcel of a single process.3. The above decision of the Supreme Court, however, has the effect of upsetting a large number of proceedings for land acquisition for various public purposes throughout the country as in most cases of bigger projects, acquisition has been done in stages consistent with the requirements of the situation and a single notification under section 4(1) has been followed with more than one declaration under section 6 of the Act. It was not possible to reopen all such cases and to start proceedings afresh as it would have seriously dislocated projects for which land had been acquired and compensation paid.4. Consequently, to overcome the adverse effect of the Supreme Court judgment and in view of the urgency of the situation affecting many important projects, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was amended with retrospective effect by the promulgation of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967, on the 20th January 1967, to provide for submission of either one report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4(1) or different reports in respect of different parcels of such land to the appropriate Government containing the recommendations of the Collector(s) on the objections submitted by the interested persons under section 5-A(1) of the Act to the acquisition of the land covered by the notification under section 4(1) or of any land in the locality, as the case may be. The Ordinance specifically provides that, if necessary, more than one declaration may be issued from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) of the Act irrespective of the fact whether one report or different reports has or have been made under section 5-A, sub-section (2) of the Act.5. At the same time, care has been taken to ensure that land acquisition proceedings do not linger on for unduly long time. The aforesaid Ordinance, therefore, provides that no declaration under section 6 of the Act should be issued in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4(1) published after the commencement of the Ordinance, after the expiry of three years from date of such publication. In case of pending proceedings it has been provided that no declaration under section 6 of the Act in respect of any land which has been notified before the commencement of the above Ordinance, under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act, may be issued after the expiry of two years from the commencement of the Ordinance.Amendment Act 68 of 1984-Statement of Objects and Reasons.-With the enormous expansion of the State's role in promoting public welfare and economic development since independence, acquisition of land for public purposes, industrialisation, building of institutions, etc., has become far more numerous than ever before. While this is inevitable, promotion of public purpose has to be balanced with the rights of the individual whose land is acquired, thereby often depriving him of his means of livelihood. Again, acquisition of land for private enterprises ought not to be placed on the same footing as acquisition for the State or for an enterprise under it. The individual and institutions who are unavoidably to be deprived of their property rights in land need to be adequately compensated for the loss keeping in view the sacrifice they have to make for the larger interests of the community. The pendency of acquisition proceedings for long periods often causes hardship to the affected parties and renders unrealistic the scale of compensation offered to them.2. It is necessary, therefore, to restructure the legislative framework for acquisition of land so that it is more adequately informed by this objective of serving the interests of the community in harmony with the rights of the individual. Keeping the above objects in view and considering the recommendations of the Law Commission, the Land Acquisition Review Committee as well as the State Governments, institutions and individuals, proposals for amendment to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were formulated and a Bill for this purpose was introduced in the Lok Sabha on the 30th April, 1982. The same has not been passed by either House of Parliament. Since the introduction of the Bill, various other proposals for amendment of the Act have been received and they have also been considered in consultation with State Governments and other agencies. It is now proposed to include all these proposals in a fresh Bill after withdrawing the pending Bill. The main proposals for amendment are as follows:-(i) The definition of "public purpose" as contained in the Act is proposed to be so amended as to include a longer illustrative list retaining, at the same time, the inclusive character of the definition.(ii) Acquisition of land for non-Government companies under the Act will henceforth be made in pursuance of Part VII of the Act in all cases.(iii) A time-limit of one year is proposed to be provided for completion of all formalities between the issue of the preliminary notification under section 4(1) of the Act and the declaration for acquisition of specified land under section 6(1) of the Act.(iv) It is proposed to provide that the Collector shall, before making his award, obtain the previous approval of the appropriate Government or any officer of that Government authorised in this behalf. Provision has also been included to empower the Collector to make the award without any enquiry if the persons interested in the acquisition agree in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made under the Act.(v) It is proposed to provide for a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration under section 6 of the Act within which the Collector should make his award under the Act. If no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land would lapse. He has also been empowered to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award within a certain period from the date of the award.(vi) The circumstances under which the Collector should take possession of the land before the award is made in urgent cases are being enlarged to include a larger variety of public purposes.(vii) The appropriate Government is being empowered to call for the record of any order passed by the Collector at any time before he makes an award for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order passed.(viii) Solatium now payable at the rate of fifteen per centum of the market value of the land acquired in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition, is proposed to be increased to thirty per centum. Similarly, the rate of interest payable on the excess compensation awarded by the Court and on the compensation in cases where possession of land is taken before payment of compensation, are also proposed to be increased substantially.(ix) Considering that the right of reference to the Civil Court under section 18 of the Act is not usually taken advantage of by inarticulate and poor people and is usually exercised only by the comparatively affluent land owners and that this causes considerable inequality in the payment of compensation for the same or similar quality of land to different interested parties, it is proposed to provide an opportunity to all aggrieved parties whose land is covered under the same notification to seek re-determination of compensation, once any one of them has obtained orders for payment of higher compensation from the reference Court under section 18 of the Act.(x) As a large number of cases for the acquisition of land are pending before various authorities for a very long time and payment of the market value of the land obtaining on the date of the preliminary notification under section 4 of the Act in respect of such land is likely to be unrealistic and iniquitous, it is proposed to provide for payment of simple interest at ten per centum per annum on the amount of compensation for the period commencing from the date of issue of the notification under section 4 of the Act to the date of tender of payment or deposit of compensation awarded by the Collector in respect of all pending proceedings on the 30th April, 1982, the date when the earlier Bill for the amendment of the Act was introduced in the House of the People.[2nd February, 1894]An Act to amend the law for the acquisition of land for public purposes and for companies.Whereas it is expedient to amend the law for the acquisition of land needed for public purposes and for companies and for determining the amount of compensation to be made on account of such acquisition; It is hereby enacted as follows:| The Land Acqusition Act has now been extended to the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli by Regn. 6 of 1963; Pondicherry by Regn. 7 of 1963;Goa, Daman and Diu by Regn.11 of 1963 and Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands by Regn. 8 of 1965.The Amendments made to the Act in its application to the Bombay area of the State of Gujarat by Section 2 of Bombay Act 18 of 1938, by Sections 2 to 4 of Bombay Act 20 of 1945, by Section 6 of Bombay Act 35 of 1949, by Section 2 of Bombay Act 27 of 1950, by Sections 2 of 11 of Bombay Act 35 of 1953 and by Section 2 of Bombay Act 1 of 1958, have been extended to the whole of that State by the Land Acquisition (Gujarat Unification and Amendment) Act 20 of 1965, with effect from 15th August, 1965.The Act and the Rules made thereunder as in force in the Bombay area of the State of Maharashtra except the Bombay Amendment Act 4 of 1948, have been extended to the whole of that State by the Land Acquisition (Maharahtra Extension and Amendment) Act 38 of 1964, with effect from 7th December, 1964. This Act has repealed the Bombay Amendment Act 17 of 1960 and the Act as in force in the Hyderabad area of that State.The Act as in force in the Mahakoshall region of the State of Madhya Pradesh before 1st January, 1950, has been extended with effect from that date to all other regisions of that State by the M.P. Extension of Laws Act 23 of 1958.The Act has been extended to the new provinces and merged States by the Merged States (Laws) Act 59 of 1949 and to the States of Manipur, Tripura and Vindhya Pradesh by the Union Territories (Laws) Act 30 of 1950. Manipur and Tripura are full-fledged States now, see Act 81 of 1971.The Act as amended from time to time by the State Legislature of Punjab has been extended from 3rd April, 1957 to the Pepsu territories transferred to the State of Punjab, by Punjab Act 5 of 1957.The Act shall cease to apply to the Malabar district of the State of Kerala See Section 62, Kerala Land Acquisition Act 21 of 1962 with effect from 1st April, 1963.The Act has been extended to the transferred territory of Kanyakumari district and shencottahtaluk of Tirnelveli district in the State of Tamil Nadu by Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1960. |