Apex Court upholds validity of award passed u/s 24(1)(a) of Land Acquisition Act of 2013; says limitation period for passing of such award will commence from date of such Act coming into force

Read Judgment: The Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs. Mahesh & Others

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, November 11, 2021: The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 25 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 would apply to the awards made and published u/s 24(1)(a),and therefore, the limitation period for passing of an award u/s 24(1)(a) in terms of Section 25 of the 2013 Act would commence from January 1, 2014, that is, the date when the 2013 Act came into force.

A Division Bench of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that period during which the Court order would inhibit action on the part of the authorities to proceed with the making of the award would be excluded while computing the period u/s 25 of the 2013 Act, and accordingly, period of 79 days from May 26, 2014 when the High Court had stayed operation of the notification dated March 19, 2014, till the new notification dated August 13, 2014 was issued, has to be excluded.

Since the award purportedly dated October 30, 2014, was in any case duly made on or before the extended date of March 20, 2015, hence, the concerned award was valid, added the Bench. 

The Top Court found that in the present case, Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act would apply as the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had not culminated into an award till the repeal of the 1894 Act. 

“Section 24(1)(a) partly nullifies the legal effect of savings u/s 6 of the General Clauses Act as it hybridizes application of the 1894 Act and the 2013 Act. While preserving validity of the acquisition proceedings by issue of declarations under the 1894 Act, it states that all the provisions for determination of compensation under the 2013 Act shall apply. The section consciously saves the legal effect of the notifications issued u/s 4 and/or Section 6 of the 1894 Act and obviates the necessity to issue a fresh notification under the 2013 Act. This ‘perseveration of the determination date’ for the computation of compensation for the awards made u/s 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act is a thought through legislative invocation that curtails time delays and cost escalation of infrastructure projects, as well as checks the post-acquisition notification malpractices, and at the same time ensures that the landowners are entitled to the benefit of the enhanced compensation as per the 2013 Act”, observed the Division Bench. 

The Bench went on to observe that absence of express limiting words is not to be used as a basis for implying retrospective operation as this would be reverse of the true presumption.

However, presumption in favour of retrospectivity may be necessary when distinct implications typically arise in the context of the statute which repeals a previous statute, and would leave a ‘lacuna’ if the new statute were not construed as having retrospective effect, added the Bench. 

The Top Court highlighted that the law of limitation is generally regarded as procedural as its object is not to create any right but prescribe periods within which legal proceedings should be instituted for enforcement of rights or adjudication orders should be passed. 

“In the context of clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, it is to be stated that the said clause would apply only if the period for making of an award had not ended and time was available as on 1st January 2014. Where and if the period for making of the award had already lapsed before 1st January 2014, clause (a) to Section 24(1) would not apply so as to deprive and deny the vested rights which have already accrued in favour of the landowners. The present case is not of divesting of vested rights of the landowners on enactment of the 2013 Act”, noted the Court.  

The Apex Court elaborated that Rule 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement (Maharashtra) Rules, 2014, states that the formula provided in Sections 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act would apply where a notification u/s 4(i) of the 1894 Act was issued before December 31, 2013, and an award has not been made before December 31, 2013. 

The Rule refers to the formula for computation of compensation to be applied u/s 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, but it does not follow that Section 25 which prescribes the limitation for making of an award will not apply, added the Court. 

Hence, the Apex Court held that Section 25 of the 2013 Act applies to awards made u/s 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act and the period of limitation of twelve months would commence from January 1, 2014. 

The State of Maharashtra may conduct an inquiry in reference to the imputation regarding manipulation and backdating of the subject award and take such remedial and corrective action as may be necessary and to ensure such situations do not arise in future, added the Apex Court.