Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Nisar Ahmed Ganai - Legal Analysis on Land Acquisition and Compensation Determination

The case revolves around the legal dispute between Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and Nisar Ahmed Ganai regarding the acquisition of land for the relocation of petroleum depots. The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, in its judgment dated 06.10.2021, directed BPCL to determine the compensation for the acquired lands in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2013’). BPCL challenged this judgment, resulting in the present appeal.

The lands in question were sought to be acquired under the provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990. The notification for acquisition was issued on 15.11.2016, followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the State Act on 12.11.2018. The landowners (respondents) filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the land acquisition proceedings and sought compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013.

In this blog post, we will explore the arguments of both the petitioner (BPCL) and the respondent (Nisar Ahmed Ganai) in detail, the key issues raised in the case, and the Supreme Court’s ruling on the applicability of the Act, 2013 to land acquisition proceedings under the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990.

Petitioner and Respondent Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The petitioner, BPCL, contended that the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990, and therefore, the provisions of the Act, 2013 were not applicable. BPCL argued that compensation should be determined under the State Act of 1990 and not under the provisions of the new Act, 2013.
BPCL further argued that Section 24 of the Act, 2013, which governs the determination of compensation in cases where no award has been made, should not apply to land acquisitions initiated under the State Act, 1990. The petitioner placed reliance on the decision in the case of Bangalore Development Authority v. The State of Karnataka, arguing that the Act, 2013 applies only to acquisitions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and not to other statutes like the State Act of 1990.
BPCL also raised the point that the acquisition proceedings were impeded by stay orders issued by the High Court and that the failure to declare an award should not lead to the applicability of Section 24 of the Act, 2013.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondent, Nisar Ahmed Ganai, argued that as the land acquisition proceedings had not been concluded, and no award had been declared, the compensation should be determined under the provisions of the Act, 2013. The respondent submitted that the provisions of the Act, 2013 should apply because the proceedings had not advanced to the point of declaring an award.
The respondent further contended that Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 clearly applies to cases where no award has been made under the previous legislation (the State Act of 1990 in this case). The respondent argued that this provision mandates that the compensation should be calculated according to the enhanced provisions of the Act, 2013.
The respondent also disagreed with BPCL’s reliance on the Bangalore Development Authority case, arguing that the provisions of the Act, 2013 were applicable in this case, as the acquisition was initiated before the repeal of the State Act, 1990.

Key Issues and Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court focused on the following key issues in the case:

1. Applicability of Section 24 of the Act, 2013

The primary issue was whether Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 applied to the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990. The petitioners (BPCL) argued that the provisions of the State Act, 1990 should govern the determination of compensation, while the respondents (Nisar Ahmed Ganai) contended that the provisions of the Act, 2013 should apply as no award had been made.

The Court referred to the language of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013, which provides that in cases where no award has been made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the compensation should be determined in accordance with the provisions of the new Act. The Court observed that the State Act of 1990, under which the land acquisition proceedings were initiated, was not the same as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and therefore, Section 24 of the Act, 2013 was not applicable to this case.

2. Repeal of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990

The issue of whether the repeal of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990, by the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, had any bearing on the applicability of the Act, 2013 was also addressed. BPCL argued that the repeal of the State Act did not affect the compensation determination, while the respondents argued that the repeal triggered the application of the Act, 2013.

The Court ruled that the repeal of the State Act, 1990, and the subsequent enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 did not automatically bring the provisions of the Act, 2013 into play. The Court further clarified that Section 24 of the Act, 2013 was not applicable to acquisitions under the State Act, 1990, and the compensation determination should continue under the provisions of the repealed State Act.

3. Impact of Stay Orders on the Acquisition Process

Another important issue was whether the stay orders issued by the High Court, which prevented the acquisition from progressing, could be used to argue for the applicability of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013. BPCL contended that since the award had not been declared due to the stay, this should not lead to the application of the new Act.

The Court concluded that the stay orders, which had prevented the authorities from completing the acquisition process, could not be used as a basis to apply the provisions of the Act, 2013. The Court noted that the application of Section 24(1)(a) depended on the legal process and not on the delays caused by court orders.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the High Court’s judgment directing BPCL to determine compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. The Court ruled that the provisions of the Act, 2013 did not apply to the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990. The Court emphasized that the compensation determination should continue under the provisions of the repealed State Act, 1990.

However, the Court also remanded the case to the High Court for further consideration of the writ petitions on other grounds related to the acquisition process. The Court clarified that while the applicability of the Act, 2013 was concluded, the High Court should address the remaining issues in the case on their merits.

Impact and Implications

This case reinforces the importance of understanding the specific statutory provisions governing land acquisitions and the transition from one legal framework to another, especially in the context of repeals and the enactment of new laws. The ruling clarifies the relationship between the provisions of the Act, 2013 and the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990, providing guidance for future land acquisition proceedings in Jammu & Kashmir.

Petitioner Name: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL).
Respondent Name: Nisar Ahmed Ganai.
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Krishna Murari.
Place Of Incident: Jammu & Kashmir.
Judgment Date: 12-10-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: bharat-petroleum-cor-vs-nisar-ahmed-ganai-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-10-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments October 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category