[SC LIVE UPDATES] Land Acquisition- Constitution Bench Hearing- [Court -3]

SD - Maybe it will take time for the society to adapt to this regime. Now I want to read through some judgements that have been placed.

J. Mishra - Everything is dependant on the court, from environment to everything. No Executive is taking any initiative. HCs are also burdened.

1. This is fairly consistent with a welfare state constitution.

2. It is a wholesale rejection of the colonial mindset. The new regime was constructed with a sensitive mindset.

3. This is far more integrated. Not only acquisition, but also rehabilitation and resettlement.

4. Degree of compensation is much higher, because the old Act was inadequate.

5. This is more participatory.

J. Mishra - Justice Patnaik’s guidelines in Narmada Bachao were laid down in this. He was the pioneer in this issue. This concept was developed in that case. Medha Patkar and all. So many states had a rehabilitation policy.

SD - What was previously in the realm of policy, has moved to the realm of entitlement.

J. Mishra - Private companies will not resort to this. By negotiation, they will take the land.

J. Saran - That’s why I asked how many acquisitions have taken place.

J. Mishra - Govt is also resorting to dubious methods. They are exploiting. You’re not giving the benefit to the land owners and you’re leaving them remedy-less. This is a blatant fraud. Idea is wholesome and salutary, but in the end everyone has dubious practices.

J. Bhat - When the threshold is kept so high, this will happen.

SD - You have made the point that this is a complete and dramatically departure. That is the point I wanted to make.

J. Saran to the State - How many acquisitions have taken place ?

SD (reading S101) - Return of unutilised land.

J. Saran - Is there any provision that the owner has to refund the money ?

SD - There is an inbuilt implied restitution. There can be no unjust enrichment. That’s my understanding as far as S24 is concerned.

It has become necessary to redefine the Act for infrastructure projects where benefits accrue for the interest of the general public.

As land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement have become two sides of the same coin. The Standing Committee presented its report on a unified legislation that can allow just and fair compensation.

SD: Your lordships have to either lean on the last or the future. Are we going to perpetuate a statute which was found bad by law. Or are we going to interpret it in a manner consistent with the principles of the new Act. We have to interpret 24 in this manner.

Shyam Divan: In the best case scenario, there was a section 4 notification. It froze the price. After award you got 130% value. At best case 3 years later.

Person’s land and livelihood taken away. A person's most fundamental right of work is taken away.

To overcome this regime, the new regime was brought in. To remedy those evils.

The SC must interpret a better, and fair legislation. In light of the new act . We have to be fairer and we are a welfare state. It recognises that the old regime was deeply flawed.

There were several rounds of litigation under the old act. Because people engaged lawyers as they felt a deep sense of injustice

The new law is a welfare state law and not a colonial law. Therefore the question is how does supreme court tackle this law.

Syam Divan arguing - 2013 Act is a radical departure from the old scheme. It is transformative insofar as what the law was. It impacted even the acquisitions of the old act.

This is not an act in continuation of an old act. Like income tax act or companies act. This act ushers in a new regime, as far as this country is concerned. This act is consistent with the constitutional ethos of our country. Not like the old act.