Case Note & Summary
Background: The matter arose from a land acquisition proceeding initiated by the Pune Municipal Corporation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under section 4 was issued on 22 July 2011, and a declaration under section 6 was published on 20 September 2012. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force on 1 January 2014, repealing the old Act. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under section 11 of the old Act on 22 December 2014, i.e., after the new Act's commencement. The landowners, dissatisfied with the compensation, applied for a reference under section 18 of the old Act to the Collector, Pune, who forwarded it to the District Court, where it was registered as Land Reference No. 162 of 2015. The Municipal Corporation contested the maintainability of the reference, contending that after the 2013 Act, any enhancement reference should be made to the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under section 51 of the 2013 Act. The District Court, by order dated 11 April 2016, held that the reference under section 18 of the old Act was maintainable. The Corporation preferred a Civil Revision Application before the High Court.
Legal Issues: The Single Judge before whom the revision came up noted a conflict between two Division Bench judgments of the Bombay High Court on the interpretation of section 24 of the 2013 Act. In Jairam Gangaram Burke v. State of Maharashtra, the Division Bench held that after the 2013 Act's enforcement, any award must be passed under the new Act, and references for enhancement must be to the Authority under section 64 of the 2013 Act. In Ashok Narayan Lande v. State of Maharashtra, the Division Bench held that proceedings initiated under the old Act must be completed under that Act by virtue of section 114 of the 2013 Act read with section 6 of the General Clauses Act, except where no award had been made before commencement (section 24(1)(a)). The Single Judge framed two questions for the Larger Bench: (i) whether a landowner could invoke section 18 of the old Act for enhancement when the award under section 11 was passed after 1 January 2014, or (ii) whether such an application must be made to the Authority under section 51 of the 2013 Act.
Arguments: Before the Full Bench, a preliminary challenge was raised by the learned senior counsel appearing as amicus curiae, arguing that the referred question incorrectly cited section 24(1)(b), which applies only when an award had been passed before the 2013 Act, whereas the award in this case was passed after 1 January 2014 and thus fell under clause (a). It was submitted that the Full Bench, being a reference court, could only determine the reference as framed, though it could reframe the question within the original scope. The court proceeded to examine section 24 to resolve the conflict.
Court's Analysis: The Full Bench, after noting the preliminary objection, extracted the text of section 24 of the 2013 Act. It observed that on a plain reading, clause (a) of sub-section (1) applies where no award had been made under section 11 before the commencement of the new Act, while clause (b) applies where an award had already been passed. The court acknowledged that the case before the Single Judge was covered by clause (a) because the award was passed after 1 January 2014. The extract of the judgment available ends mid-sentence during the discussion; the court's final decision on the reference questions is not included in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure – Reference to Larger Bench – Scope of Reference Court – The Full Bench considered a preliminary challenge that the referred question mistakenly invoked section 24(1)(b) instead of clause (a) since the award was passed after the Act's commencement. The Full Bench noted that it had the power to reframe the question within the original reference's scope, and that extraction and analysis of section 24 were necessary for a proper determination (Paras 8-10).
B) Land Acquisition – Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Interpretation – Clause (a) of section 24(1) applies when no award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been made before the Act, 2013 came into force; clause (b) applies where such an award had already been passed. The present case fell under clause (a) because the award was passed on 22 December 2014, after the commencement date of 1 January 2014 (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable when the award under Section 11 was passed after 1 January 2014 (the date of commencement of the 2013 Act), or whether the landowner must apply to the Authority under Section 51 of the 2013 Act
Law Points
- Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013 applies where no award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 has been made before the commencement of the 2013 Act
- Section 24(1)(b) applies where an award under section 11 has been made before commencement
- clause (a) addresses cases where award is passed after 1 January 2014
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (08) 79
Civil Revision Application No. 316 of 2016
R.M. Borde, Rajesh G. Ketkar, N. J. Jamadar
Abhijit Purushottam Kulkarni, Manoj Badgujar, Aanand Nandu, P.K. Dhakephalkar, Shrikrishna Ganbavale, S.S. Yadav, Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Akshay Shinde, A.R. Patil, S.B. Lolage, Anil V. Anturkar, Dormaan J.Dalal, Shubham Misar, Prathamesh Bhargude, Sugandh Deshmukh, Yatin Malwankar, Ranjit Shinde, Ajinkya Udane, Girish Godbole, Yashodeep Deshmukh, Sandip Patil
Pune Municipal Corporation Through the Municipal Commissioner, Shivaji Nagar, Pune.
1. Mr. Rajeev L. Sangtani, 2. Ms. Nina L. Sangtani, 3. Mrs. Manisha Nitesh Idnanee alias Manisha L. Sangtani, 4. M/s. Atur Sangtani and Associates, 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.16, Pune, 6. The Collector, Pune
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Reference to a Larger Bench arising from a Civil Revision Application challenging the maintainability of a land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Remedy Sought
The applicant (Pune Municipal Corporation) sought to set aside the District Court's order holding that a reference under Section 18 of the old Act was maintainable, and to have it declared that the reference should have been made to the Authority under Section 51 of the 2013 Act. The Single Judge referred the legal questions to the Larger Bench for resolution of conflicting Division Bench decisions.
Filing Reason
The Municipal Corporation contested the tenability of the Section 18 reference after the 2013 Act came into force, and the Single Judge identified a conflict between two Division Bench judgments of the Bombay High Court on the interpretation of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.
Previous Decisions
The District Court, by order dated 11 April 2016, held that the reference under Section 18 of the old Act was maintainable. Subsequently, the Single Judge of the High Court, by order dated 19 October 2018, referred the following questions to the Larger Bench: (i) Whether under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act, a party can invoke Section 18 of the old Act for enhancement when the award under Section 11 was rendered after 1 January 2014; or (ii) Whether such a person must apply to the Authority established under Section 51 of the 2013 Act.
Issues
Whether under Section 24(1)(b) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, a landowner or any person interested can invoke Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for seeking enhancement of compensation even though the land acquisition award under Section 11 was rendered after 1 January 2014?
Whether any such person who has not accepted the award rendered after 1 January 2014 declaring compensation under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can seek a reference only by applying to the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Authority established under Section 51 of the Act of 2013?
Submissions/Arguments
The learned Senior Counsel raised a preliminary challenge that the referral order referred to Section 24(1)(b), but the case fell under clause (a) because the award was passed after 1 January 2014; he submitted that the Full Bench, being a reference court, could only deal with the reference as framed, though it could reframe the question within the original scope (Paras 8-9).
The applicant (Pune Municipal Corporation) contended that after enforcement of the 2013 Act, any award passed after 1 January 2014 must be under the new Act, and references for enhancement should be made to the Authority under Section 51 of the 2013 Act, not under Section 18 of the old Act.
The respondents (landowners) contended that since the award was passed under Section 11 of the old Act, the reference under Section 18 thereof was properly made, and the Reference Court (District Court) had jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 19th October 2018, in the instant Civil Revision Application, has made the following reference to the Larger Bench for consideration : (i) Whether under section 24(1)(b) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the land owner or any party seeking enhancement of claim of compensation can invoke the provisions of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for seeking enhancement of claim of compensation even though the land acquisition award had been rendered under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after 1st January, 2014 ? OR (ii) Whether any such person interested who has not accepted the award rendered after 1st January, 2014 declaring compensation under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can seek reference by applying only to refer such claim to the Authority i.e. the “Land Acquisition Rehabilitation & Resettlement Authority” established under section 51 of the Act of 2013 ?
In the backdrop of the aforesaid pronouncements in the cases of Jairam Gangaram Burke & Ors. (Supra) and Mr.Ashok Narayan Lande (Supra), the learned Single Judge concluded that there was a clear conflict in the views expressed by the Division Benches in the aforesaid two judgments and thus the conflict is required to be resolved by referring the issue to the Larger Bench.
The phraseology of section 24 on its plain reading makes it abundantly clear that clause (a) of subsection (1) addresses a situation where though the proceedings for acquisition have been initiated under the Old Act, yet on the date of the commencement of the Act, 2013, the award has not been passed. In contrast, clause (b) deals with a situation where the proceedings initiated under the Old Act have culminated in passing of the award under section 11 of the Act, 1894.
Procedural History
A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 22 July 2011, and a declaration under section 6 was published on 20 September 2012. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force on 1 January 2014. An award under section 11 of the old Act was passed on 22 December 2014. The landowners applied for a reference under section 18 of the old Act to the Collector, which was forwarded to the District Court and registered as Land Reference No. 162 of 2015. The Pune Municipal Corporation challenged the maintainability of the reference. The District Court, by order dated 11 April 2016, held that the reference under section 18 was maintainable. The Corporation filed Civil Revision Application No. 316 of 2016. The Single Judge, noting conflicting Division Bench decisions in Jairam Gangaram Burke v. State of Maharashtra (2017 (5) Mh.L.J. 354) and Ashok Narayan Lande v. State of Maharashtra (2018 SCC Bom. 1763), referred the matter to the Larger Bench on 19 October 2018. The Full Bench heard the matter and reserved judgment on 5 July 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: 24(1)(a), 24(1)(b), 24(2), 51, 63, 64, 114
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 4, 6, 11, 18
- General Clauses Act, 1897: 6
