Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. In answer to this argument, Ms. Bane, the learned AGP, submitted that in all the above Writ Petitions the Awards are passed by taking into consideration the provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. She submitted that under Section 24(1)(a) where land acquisition proceedings are initiated under the 1894 Act but have not culminated in an Award on the date when the 2013 Act came into force [i.e. 1 st January 11th January 2024 Utkarsh wp.11513.2015.docx 2014], then, all the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. She submitted that when one reads Section 24(1)(a), it is clear that proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act have to be continued and it is only for determination of compensation that the provisions of the 2013 Act would come into play. In other words, it was the submission of Ms. Bane that once no Award is passed under the 1894 Act by 31st December 2013, then, only the provisions of Section 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act relating to determination of compensation would apply and not the other provisions, namely, Section 25, which stipulates that the Award is to be passed within a period of 1 year from the notification issued under Section 19 of the 2013 Act. To put it differently, it was the submission of Ms. Bane that the time for passing the Award was a period of 2 years as specified in Section 11A of the 1894 Act and if this be the case, then all the Awards were passed within time and hence there is no question of either the Awards, or the acquisition proceedings relating thereto, having lapsed and or being declared as invalid. In support of this submission Ms. Bane relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. VS Deepak Agarwal & Ors. [2022 SCC Online SC 932].

19. Faced with this decision, Ms. Bane, the learned AGP, submitted that this decision of the Supreme Court is impliedly overruled by 3 judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana 11th January 2024 Utkarsh wp.11513.2015.docx State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra). She submitted that in this decision the Supreme Court has held that in cases covered under Section 24(1)(a), it is only the provisions of Section 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act that would apply and not any other provision, namely, Section 25. We are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned AGP for more than one reason. Firstly, we find that the issue raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra) was the interpretation of the word "initiated" appearing in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act with reference to land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act. It was the contention of some of the parties that for the purposes of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, issuance and publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the 1894 Act alone amounted to initiation of acquisition proceedings thereunder. The contrary stand was that it is the declaration under Section 6(1) of the 1894 Act [that the land is required for a public purpose], which would mark the point of initiation of acquisition proceedings thereunder. It was this issue that was being decided by the Supreme Court. In fact, this is clear from paragraph 33 of this decision which states that taking note of the legislative intention it has no hesitation in holding that the point of initiation of land 11th January 2024 Utkarsh wp.11513.2015.docx acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act, for the purposes of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, is the issuance and publication of the Section 4(1) notification in the official gazette of the Appropriate Government. Thereafter, the Supreme Court also went on to consider whether the Section 4 notification issued under the 1894 Act prior to 1 st January 2014 could continue or survive after 1 st January 2014, and as to whether the Section 6 declaration [under 1894 Act] could be issued after 1 st January 2014. It is whilst discussing this issue that the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held that the combined effect of Section 24(1) and clause (a) thereof is that if land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act were initiated prior to 1st January, 2014 (the date of coming into force the 2013 Act), and it did not culminate into an Award under Section 11 [of the 1894 Act], then all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation should apply to such acquisition proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thus held that in such circumstances, the land acquisition proceedings should continue but all the provisions relating to the determination of compensation under the 2013 Act alone will be applicable to such proceedings, meaning thereby, the 2013 Act would come into play only at that stage. When one reads the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation 11th January 2024 Utkarsh wp.11513.2015.docx Limited (supra) the same cannot be read de-hors the question that was being determined by the Supreme Court.

21. Applying the aforesaid principles, we are unable to accept the submission of Ms. Bane that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra) has impliedly overruled its decision in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra). This is more so when one take into consideration that the said judgment in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra) has been specifically referred to in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (in 11th January 2024 Utkarsh wp.11513.2015.docx paragraph 9 thereof), and the same has not been overruled, either expressly or by necessary implication. Another factor that persuades us to take this view is that one of the Judges in both the matters was the same (A. M. Khanvilkar, J. as he then was). If the Supreme Court, in Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited wanted to overrule its judgment in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (supra), it would have expressly done so. We therefore find that the argument of Ms. Bane is wholly misplaced and so is the reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (supra).