[Land Acquisition]If Award Not Made Due To Stay, Would Enhanced Compensation Under 2013 Act Still Accrue?- SC To Consider Section 24(1)(a) Separately

The Supreme Court five-judge bench, to which the task of the interpretation of section 24 of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act has been entrusted, grappled with a new question on Wednesday- if the award, for the purpose of section 24(1)(a), could not be made on account of a stay, would the provisions of the new Act still apply, entitling all to the enhanced compensation?

Earlier, the proposition of the exclusion of the time lost owing to a court-ordered injunction was being debated for the computation of the five year period under section 24(2) which provides for the lapse of the acquisition.

To deliberate on whether or not to answer this question, the bench retired to chambers for about 20 minutes, also requesting the advocates associated with the case to appear before the court to assist the bench.

While the government urged section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act in this behalf, the other side advanced section 6(c). Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the bench may find the answer in section 11A of the 1894 Act, which stipulates that the Collector shall make an award within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and in calculating this period, the duration of stay by an order of a court shall be excluded.

However, the bench decided to de-tag the matter in which the new question, not part of the reference, was raised. "We won't make any observations that would affect either party...we can't enlarge the scope of the reference", observed Justice Arun Mishra.

Earlier in the day, the bench had engaged in a discussion with Advocate Prashant Bhushan when the latter submitted that the proviso applies to the entire section 24.

"(2) says if compensation not paid or possession to taken, then there is a lapse. Sp how will the proviso operate? Because non-deposit is non-payment? And the consequence of non-payment is lapse?", asked Justice Mishra.

"Once it is deemed to have lapsed. where is the question of higher compensation?", added Justice M. R. Shah.

"Although it has lapsed for some, those for whom the acquisition has not lapsed, there is higher compensation...the court should see person-by-person...there will be lapse only for those who have not been paid", replied Mr. Bhushan.

"People come to court at different points of time. The petitions involve one person or three persons...how does the court apply the proviso (which says that where the award is made but the compensation is not deposited in the accounts of the majority of the beneficiaries, all would be entitled to a higher compensation)?", asked Justice Ravindra Bhat.

"Suppose there is an acquisition of 100 acres. You have the award. Possession has been taken for all 100 landholdings. 49% have been paid. Those who are not paid come to the court. These individuals seek the declaration of lapse. How do you work out the proviso? It speaks of a whole...", continued the judge.

"(2) speaks of a person-to-person. That 'your' acquisition has lapsed. There would be higher compensation for all", responded Mr. Bhushan.

"If it has lapsed qua some, how would there be higher compensation for them? Also, would 'paid' in (2) include 'deposit' as in the proviso, the consequence for the former being lapse and the latter being higher compensation?", questioned Justice Mishra.

"Suppose a large number of people have got the compensation and the acquisition lapses then? They would go under 24(2) for a fresh acquisition. Then they would get the same result of higher compensation as in the proviso", noted Justice Bhat.

"Suppose there is lapsing under (2) for one. But he doesn't want lapsing and instead he wants higher compensation under the proviso. The choice is left to him...", said Mr. Bhushan.

"There is no choice. There is deemed lapsing...it is automatic...nobody can revive it, not even the court", stated Justice Mishra.

"If he has the right to elect, the the law doesn't operate to lapse", added Justice Bhat.

"And this is possible only if we read 'or' as 'and'. If we read it as 'or', it will invariably lapse", continued Justice Mishra.

"Only those will get the higher compensation who have not been paid", said Mr. Bhushan.

"But the proviso says to all. Do we re-write it?", probed Justice Mishra.

"(2) is individualistic. The proviso is collective. The proviso will apply for those where there has been no lapse and they will get the higher compensation. Those for whom there has been a lapse will go out", asserted Mr. Bhushan.

"Even if the award was passed yesterday and the majority are not paid, then everybody will get the higher compensation. The rider of 5 years is only for lapse in (2)", he continued.

"The we would have to read down (1)(b) to apply to situation within 5 years. Because in case of 5 years or more, it lapses under (2). Can we re-write and read down a provision like this?", ventured Justice Mishra.