Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, owner of land admeasuring 9 Gunthas of City Survey No. 3328 at Bhosari, challenged an acquisition award under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and consequent notice under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land was notified for a school purpose in 2004, and the petitioner had existing constructions and occupants. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 24 September 2015 acquiring 500 square meters and issued a notice fixing possession on 14 October 2015. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to the enactment of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The principal legal issue was whether Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applied to lapse the acquisition, and whether the award could validly be passed under the repealed Land Acquisition Act after the new Act came into force. The petitioner argued that because the award was made on 24 September 2015, after the 2013 Act commenced, the proceedings stood lapsed under Section 24(2), as no award under the old Act had been made five years prior. He further contended that notices issued in 2005 were not taken to logical conclusion and the old Act could not be invoked after repeal. The respondent State defended the continuation of proceedings relying on the saving clause. The High Court examined Section 24(2) and held that on a plain reading, it requires the award to have been made at least five years before the commencement of the 2013 Act, which was not the case, as the award was made on 24 September 2015. The Court further relied on the Full Bench decision in Mehtab Laiq Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, which held that Section 24(2) does not apply to acquisitions initiated under Sections 125 to 127 of the MRTP Act, which is a complete code. Since the present acquisition was under the MRTP Act, the argument based on Section 24(2) was untenable. Addressing the second submission, the Court referred to Section 114(2) of the 2013 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which save proceedings initiated under the repealed Act and allow them to be continued and completed under its provisions. The Court noted that the only exception was in Section 24(1)(a) regarding determination of compensation, which was correctly applied. The award was validly made under the old Act with compensation calculated as per the new Act. The petitioner's final contention that the award was a composite award under both Acts was rejected as a misreading. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the acquisition proceedings and the award were valid.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Lapsing - Section 24(2) Right to Fair Compensation Act - Award must be five years prior - Award dated 24.09.2015, not five years before the Act's commencement - Held that Section 24(2) has no application (Paras 5-6). B) Land Acquisition - MRTP Act - Section 24(2) Applicability - Mehtab Laiq Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra - Section 24(2) does not apply to acquisitions under Sections 125-127 of MRTP Act - Held that reliance on Section 24(2) to claim lapsing is misconceived (Para 7). C) Land Acquisition - Repeal and Saving - Section 114 New Act, Section 6 General Clauses Act - Proceedings initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 must be continued under that Act - Award under Section 11 made on 24.09.2015 was valid - Exception under Section 24(1)(a) only applies to compensation calculation - Held that award validly passed (Paras 8-11). D) Land Acquisition - Nature of Award - Composite Award Argument - Award correctly states it is under old Act but compensation calculated per Section 24(1)(a) of new Act - Held that argument of composite award is wholly misconceived (Para 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquisition proceedings under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and Land Acquisition Act, 1894 lapsed owing to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and whether the award passed under the old Act after the new Act came into force was valid.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act did not apply because the award was not five years old, and even if it applied, it would not apply to MRTP Act acquisitions as per the Full Bench in Mehtab Laiq Ahmed Shaikh. The Court further held that the proceedings were validly continued under the old Act by virtue of Section 114(2) of the new Act read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, and the award was properly made under the old Act with compensation calculated as per Section 24(1)(a) of the new Act. The argument regarding a composite award was rejected as misconceived.
Law Points
- Section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation Act lapses acquisition only if award was made five years before the new Act
- Section 24(2) does not apply to acquisitions under MRTP Act
- proceedings initiated under repealed Land Acquisition Act continue by virtue of Section 114(2) read with Section 6 General Clauses Act
- compensation for such proceedings determined as per Section 24(1)(a) of the new Act.
