Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dealt with a writ petition filed by twenty-two landowners whose lands were acquired for the Chinchala Distribution Canal Medium Project. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with a notification under Section 4 issued on 18-12-2012 and a declaration under Section 6 published on 04-04-2013. A final award was passed on 16-12-2013. However, it was categorically stated in the award that possession of the acquired lands had not been taken, and no compensation was paid to the landowners before 01-01-2014, when the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force. Compensation was disbursed in installments between 18-01-2014 and 16-08-2014. The petitioners contended that under Section 24 of the new Act, they were entitled to have their compensation determined under the more beneficial provisions of the new Act, and they sought quashing of the award dated 16-12-2013. The State respondents argued that the award was validly made under the old Act and that the petitioners had accepted compensation without protest, thereby estopping them from claiming under the new Act. The Court examined the provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act and the authoritative interpretation in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal. It found that the State had placed no evidence on record to show that either possession was taken or compensation was deposited in the treasury before 01-01-2014. The mere passing of an award before the cut-off date did not extinguish the right to compensation under the new Act. The Court held that the proviso to Section 24(2) clearly applies where compensation has not been deposited for the majority of land holdings, entitling all beneficiaries to compensation in accordance with the new Act. It further held that the acceptance of compensation without protest is irrelevant when the right flows from the statute, as there can be no estoppel against the law. Accordingly, the Court quashed the award dated 16-12-2013 and directed the authorities to determine and pay compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation Determination - Section 24 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Where award passed under old Act but possession not taken and compensation not paid before new Act, compensation determinable under new Act. Held that since neither possession nor compensation was taken/paid before 01.01.2014, the proviso to section 24(2) applies and all beneficiaries are entitled to compensation under the new Act. (Paras 5.1-5.8) B) Land Acquisition - Protest and Estoppel - Section 24 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Acceptance of compensation without protest does not bar claim under new Act. Held that protest or non-protest is immaterial when the statute confers an unfettered right; there can be no estoppel against the law. (Paras 5.4-5.5) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Section 24 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - State failed to prove deposit of compensation in treasury before 01.01.2014. Mere reference to case law without cogent evidence insufficient to discharge burden. (Paras 5.2-5.3) D) Land Acquisition - Interpretation of Section 24 - Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, AIR Online 2020 SC 346 - Supreme Court clarified that under section 24(2) read with proviso, if compensation not deposited for majority, all beneficiaries entitled under new Act. High Court applied this precedent. (Paras 5.6-5.8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether landowners are entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, when the award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but neither possession was taken nor compensation was paid before 01.01.2014, the date of commencement of the new Act.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The award dated 16.12.2013 is quashed. The authorities are directed to determine compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- compensation under new act
- section 24 of right to fair compensation act
- award lapses if possession not taken and compensation not paid
- protest not necessary
- no estoppel against law
- ida case para 363
