S.21 Of General Clauses Act Can't Be Used To Review 'Award' Made Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Manipur High Court

"It may however be noted that Section 21 of the Act of 1897 states that the general power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws under a Central Act would include the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind them also. However, this provision does not mention an 'Award', relatable to the Act of 1894, and speaks only of notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws issued under a Central Act. The nature of an Award under the Act of 1894 is entirely different from 'notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws' referred to in Section 21 of the Act of 1897, as it is in the nature of a decision arrived at after hearing all the parties concerned."

Factual Background:

The lands of the respondents were acquired by the State (appellants herein) for expansion of the Imphal Tulihal Airport. The Award fixing the compensation thereof under the Act of 1894 was passed on 21-02-2009. This Award was relating to the compensation payable merely for the lands and it indicated that a separate statement for the compensation payable for standing properties would be issued thereafter.

Accordingly, Addendum dated 27-11-2010 was issued by the DC/Collector, Land Acquisition, Imphal West District, quantifying the compensation payable for supplementary standing properties. However, a resurvey was undertaken after considerable time leading to the issuance of Order dated 04-05-2015 by the Under Secretary, Horticulture & Soil Conservation Department, Government of Manipur, cancelling all earlier and latest survey/assessment reports, including the claims for compensation, etc. with immediate effect in public interest. However, at no point of time the respondents were put on notice, be it during the resurvey or the exercise of cancelling the Addendum.

The aforesaid action of the authority was challenged by the respondents through a writ petition, wherein they were granted relief by the Single Judge. Thus, the instant appeal was filed against that order.

Contentions of the Appellants:

Advocate General Mr. N. Kumarjit, who appeared for the appellants, argued that notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 1894, Section 21 of the Act of 1897 would come to the aid of the authorities and empower them to cancel an 'Award' or an 'Addendum Award' passed under the Act of 1894.

Contentions of the Respondents:

Mr. H.S. Paonam, senior counsel appearing for the respondents, pointed out that the Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the 'finality of Awards' under the Act of 1894 in Kothamasu Kanakarathamma & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1965 SC 304. Therein, the Supreme Court observed that the only manner in which the finality of the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer can be called in question is by resort to Section 18 of the Act of 1894.

It was further observed in the judgment that as per Section 12(1) of the Act of 1894, once the Award is filed in the Collector's Office, it shall be final and conclusive evidence between the Collector and the persons interested as regards the area/value of the land and apportionment of compensation.

Observations of the Court:

The Court observed that the scheme of the Act of 1894 does not vest the land acquisition authorities with any power of review, whereby they could have undertaken such an exercise in the context of the Addendum dated 27-11-2010, which was in the nature of a supplementary Award. Contrary to that, Section 12(1) of the Act of 1894 posits that the Award, once passed, attains finality and it is not open to even the Land Acquisition Collector to tamper with it, except to the limited extent permitted under Section 13A of the Act of 1894.

Section 13A provides that the Collector, after passing the Award, has the power to correct only clerical/arithmetical errors therein and that too, before the expiry of six months from the date of the Award. Even such errors cannot be corrected without putting a person, who would be prejudicially affected thereby, on notice and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making a representation.

The Court while rejecting the contention of the appellants, observed that Section 21 of the Act of 1897 states that the general power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws under a Central Act would include the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind them. However, this provision does not mention an 'Award', relatable to the Act of 1894, and speaks only of notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws issued under a Central Act and the nature of Award under the Act of 1894 is entirely different from 'notifications, orders, rules, or bye-laws' referred to in Section 21 of the Act of 1897.

It would therefore not be open to the authorities to bank upon this general provision to assume the power of review in the context of an Award passed under the Act of 1894. Further, it reiterated that a general provision cannot prevail over a special legislation, viz., the Act of 1894, which embodies a complete and comprehensive scheme for dealing with all issues relating to land acquisition.

Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: The State of Manipur & Ors. v. Shri Maithem Deben Singh & Ors.

Case No.: W.A. No. 11 of 2019

Judgment Dated: 16 March 2022

Coram: Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice M.V. Muralidaran

Authored by: Chief Justice Sanjay Kumar

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. N. Kumarjit, Advocate General, State of Manipur

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. H.S. Paonam, Senior Advocate

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Man) 5