[Live-Updates From Supreme Court] Hearing on Section 24 Of New Land Acquisition Act- Court-3

Bench has risen for lunch,

Pg. 216 - the core issue is valuation.

Pg. 218 - Retrospective effect doesn’t mean land has not been acquired.

Pg. 220 - Rajnath Singh: lok sabha: bill should be implemented with retrospective effect. Where there’s no compensation, acquisition etc.

Pg. 228 - Prasanta Kumar Majumder: compensation should be paid with retrospective effect.

Foot of page 231 - Mr. Shetty: this act should be implemented with retrospective effect.

Pg. 234, 235 - Where provisions do not reached its present form. This is a Minister’s observation and is only on bottom of Pg. 237.

Pg. 239 - Small amendment. Which is negative.

J. Mishra - Where is it stated that should be given as compensation . And where possession has been taken ?

SD - We are extremely concerned about this colonial legacy. It’s a radical and welcome departure from the past. This is only colonial baggage.

Recommendation of committee at page 195 of compilation. Here, UP state kept out of the preview possession taken as per S17.

SD - There are two situations for lapsing:

1. Where there’s no award, no possession before legislation.

J. Saran - So, you’re saying that it’s conjunctive.

J. Shah - Subsection 2 is for possession.

J. Mishra - 24(2) award has been passed 5 years back, but possession was not taken. Then what ?

SD - These are limited utilities. We will consider it.

J. Bhat - S24(1) and (2) talks about no award, no possession.

SD - No possession without award means not given any compensation. When possession not taken, it is deemed to have lapsed.

Shyam Divan; The interpretation of S24 must be construed literally. It was brought in as a part of the new regime and this is only pertinent for situations that were supposed to arise in the future. The benefits under new law will be taken under the new law.

SD: I am not raising stare decisis.

Al the points being raised now were raised before as well. I will delve into the legislative history. Neema judgement is dated 12.01.2018. The issue referred to was plain and literal interpretation.

Syam Divan(SD): Section 24 should be given plain and literal construction.

The vesting under 1894 Act only exists when award under S11 is there.