Supreme Court Clarifies Land Acquisition Process Under 2013 Act

The case of Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Deepak Aggarwal & Ors. is a landmark ruling that clarifies the interpretation of land acquisition processes under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). The dispute centered around the meaning of ‘initiated’ in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act and whether land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) should be deemed as lapsed if an award had not been made within five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act.

Background of the Case

The legal controversy arose when multiple landowners challenged acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act before the 2013 Act came into force. The petitioners contended that since no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act had been made within five years of the 2013 Act coming into force, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed.

On the other hand, the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) and the State of Haryana argued that the acquisition proceedings were initiated when the Section 4(1) notification of the 1894 Act was issued and that these proceedings should not be considered lapsed.

Arguments by the Petitioners (Landowners)

The petitioners argued that:

Under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, if no award had been made before the new law came into force, all provisions of the 2013 Act should apply to determine compensation.
Under Section 24(2), if five years had passed since the award was made and either possession had not been taken or compensation had not been paid, the acquisition should be deemed to have lapsed.
The word ‘initiated’ in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act must be interpreted to mean the date of the Section 6 declaration under the 1894 Act, not the date of the Section 4(1) notification.
The government had failed to complete the acquisition within a reasonable time, leading to unnecessary delays and hardship for landowners.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Haryana & HSIIDC)

The State and HSIIDC countered these claims, arguing that:

The acquisition proceedings were validly initiated with the Section 4(1) notification of the 1894 Act, which marked the beginning of the land acquisition process.
Under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act, if an award had been made, the acquisition should continue under the 1894 Act.
The term ‘initiated’ under the 2013 Act should be construed in favor of the government to protect public infrastructure projects.
The delay in land acquisition was due to legal challenges and procedural requirements, not government inaction.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka, and C.T. Ravikumar, made the following key observations:

The term ‘initiated’ in Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act should be interpreted in the context of the issuance of a Section 4(1) notification under the 1894 Act.
Land acquisition proceedings commence with the publication of a notification under Section 4(1), and all subsequent steps, including the Section 6 declaration and award, are part of this process.
Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act does not nullify ongoing acquisition proceedings if an award has not been made.
Section 24(2) provides relief to landowners only if possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid within five years prior to 2013.
The legislative intent behind the 2013 Act was to ensure fair compensation and rehabilitation while allowing necessary acquisitions to proceed.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Haryana and HSIIDC, holding that:

“For the purposes of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall be treated as initiated upon the publication of a notification under Section 4(1).”

The Court further clarified that:

If no award was passed before the 2013 Act, the new compensation provisions would apply.
Land acquisition proceedings would not lapse automatically unless conditions under Section 24(2) were met.
The Court emphasized that acquisitions should not be unduly delayed and that the government must ensure timely compensation and possession.

Key Takeaways

Land Acquisition Initiation: The issuance of a Section 4(1) notification marks the beginning of acquisition proceedings.
Protection of Public Projects: The ruling safeguards infrastructure and industrial projects from automatic lapses due to procedural delays.
Compensation and Rehabilitation: If an award was not made, new compensation rules under the 2013 Act apply.
Judicial Clarity: The judgment resolves conflicting High Court rulings on when land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have begun.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Deepak Aggarwal ensures a balanced approach to land acquisition, protecting both landowners’ rights and public infrastructure projects. The decision clarifies that the publication of a Section 4(1) notification is the starting point of land acquisition and that pending acquisitions should continue unless explicitly deemed lapsed under Section 24(2). This judgment serves as a critical reference for future land acquisition disputes in India.

Petitioner Name: Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors..
Respondent Name: Deepak Aggarwal & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Place Of Incident: Haryana.
Judgment Date: 27-07-2022.

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

Download Judgment: haryana-state-indust-vs-deepak-aggarwal-&-or-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-27-07-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Other Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 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