Interpretation of ‘Initiated’ in Land Acquisition Proceedings

In a recent legal case, the court grappled with the interpretation of the term ‘initiated’ in the context of land acquisition proceedings. The analysis undertaken by the court unravels complex legal facets surrounding the commencement and continuity of acquisition processes. This summary explores the depth of the court’s legal examination in assessing the implications of the term ‘initiated’ within the realm of land acquisition law.

Facts

• The point of polemics in this case revolves around the interpretation of the term ‘initiated’ in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act.
• Party ‘A’ argues that issuance and publication of a Notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894 should be considered as initiation of acquisition proceedings for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act.

Also Read: Limitation and Pre-emption Rights in Sale of Urban Immovable Property

Arguments

• Party ‘B’ raises contentions based on violation of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Indian Constitution, which are to be rejected.
• Party ‘B’ argues that the initiation of acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act is marked by the declaration of land requirement for public purpose under Section 6(1) of the Act.
• Party ‘B’ contends that allowing the continuation of proceedings under the L.A. Act would breach Article 300-A of the Constitution.
• Section 24 of the 2013 Act and the term ‘initiated’ under clause (a) of sub-section (1) should be interpreted in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Without a notification, it would be unlawful for any officer authorized by the appropriate Government or their servants to enter, survey, or take actions specified in Section 4(2) of the L.A. Act.

Also Read: 30-Year Sentence Upheld in Rape Case of 7 Year Old Minor at Temple

Analysis

• Section 4(1) Notification is crucial for land acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act.
• The initiation of acquisition proceedings is marked by the issuance and publication of Section 4(1) Notification.
• The legislative intent of the 2013 Act and the importance of Section 24 in determining the continuation of land acquisition proceedings.
• The role of Section 24(1)(a) in applying the provisions of the 2013 Act for compensation determination.
• The differing viewpoints of the parties regarding the initiation of acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act.
• The significance of ‘initiated’ under Section 24(1) for understanding the process of land acquisition.
• The necessity of Section 6 declaration and the impact of urgency clause under Section 17 in the acquisition process.
• The legislative awareness of ongoing public projects and the need for a balanced approach in land acquisition.
• Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act overrides Section 114 of the 2013 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.
• Section 114 of the 2013 Act is subject to ‘save as otherwise provided’ in the 2013 Act.
• Section 6 of the General Clauses Act does not apply when legislative intent is contrary.
• The non-obstante clause in a Section gives the enacting part an overriding effect over conflicting provisions.
• Section 6 of the General Clauses Act stipulates the effect of repeals and saving provisions.
• The L.A. Act provisions are saved to a certain extent in given circumstances as per the 2013 Act.
• The process of land acquisition under the L.A. Act is deemed to have lapsed in certain cases under the 2013 Act.
• Paragraph 17 of the judgement discusses the initiation of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.
• It refers to Babu Barkya Thakur’s case to explain the preliminary steps and the purpose of the notification under Section 4 of the Act.
• The significance of Section 6 declaration in land acquisition proceedings is highlighted.
• The Constitution Bench’s interpretation of Article 21 in relation to the right to livelihood is discussed.
• Reference is made to the decision in Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corpn. Vs. Mahesh & Ors. to provide context.
• The importance of Section 6 declaration in completing the acquisition proceedings is emphasized in Fomento Resort’s case.
• The legislative intention behind the 2013 Act for land acquisition is outlined.
• The objectives and reasons for the 2013 Act are stated to ensure fair compensation and rehabilitation for affected persons.
• The word ‘initiated’ in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act is discussed in the context of land acquisition for industrialization and development projects.
• The interpretation of the word ‘initiated’ is analyzed with respect to fair compensation and facilitating land acquisition processes.
• The legislative history of Section 24 of the 2013 Act is considered for proper construction.
• The impact of ‘initiation’ of land acquisition proceedings and its culmination in an award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act is explored.
• The initiation of land acquisition proceedings through notification under Section 4 and its implications are explained.
• The decision in Babu Barkya Thakur’s case regarding the purpose of Section 4 notification is reiterated.
• The meaning of ‘initiate’ with reference to the L.A. Act under Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act is analyzed.
• The necessity of Section 4(1) notification for land acquisition is emphasized.
• The decision in State of M.P. Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan is referenced for understanding land acquisition processes.
• The role of Section 23 in determining compensation based on the date of notification under Section 4 is discussed.
• The importance of Section 4 and Section 6 notifications in land acquisition proceedings is highlighted.
• The decision in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar Vs. Stte of Gujarat regarding Article 300-A and Article 21 is referenced.
• The word ‘initiated’ in Section 24(1) is linked to the issuance and publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act.
• The significance of Section 4 notification in commencing acquisition proceedings is reiterated.
• The decision in Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat is considered for interpreting the term ‘initiated’ in land acquisition proceedings.
• Legislative intention and objects of the 2013 Act must be considered in interpreting provisions.
• Acquisitions for public purposes should be fair and transparent.
• Procedures for land acquisition must be conducted uniformly and in accordance with the law.
• It is not in the public interest to allow acquisition proceedings to lapse or be conducted arbitrarily.
• Uniform procedures must be followed in land acquisition proceedings.
• Construction of Section 24(1)(a) is necessary for the provisions to work effectively.
• All provisions of the 2013 Act relating to compensation apply to proceedings not culminated in an award.
• Procedures during the intervening period till determination of compensation must be clear and certain.
• Procedures can be conducted as per the L.A. Act or the 2013 Act, with a restricted application of provisions in relation to compensation determination.
• Certainty in the regulations of procedures during land acquisition is essential.

Also Read: Suppression of Material Facts and Fraud on the Court

Decision

• Section 4(1) notification issued before 01.01.2014 can survive after 01.01.2014.
• Section 6 notification under the L.A. Act can be issued after 01.01.2014.
• All procedures and formalities will continue until compensation determination under the 2013 Act.
• Applying provisions for compensation determination as per the 2013 Act is necessary.
• Provisions under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act are applicable and workable.
• Proceedings under the L.A. Act shall be treated as initiated on publication of a notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act.
• Under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, proceedings shall continue as per the L.A. Act.
• Provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied only for the determination of compensation amount.
• Other legal and factual issues are involved in the appeals besides the common questions.
• The appeals will be listed before an appropriate Bench for disposal based on their own merits.

Case Title: HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. Vs. DEEPAK AGGARWAL (2022 INSC 767)

Case Number: C.A. No.-005947-005948 / 2022

Click here to read/download original judgement