TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the proviso to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is to be treated as part of Section 24(1)(b) or as part of Section 24(2), and whether the respondents were entitled to compensation under the Act of 2013.
Analysis: Section 24(1)(b) preserves acquisition proceedings where an award has been made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, while Section 24(2), beginning with a non obstante clause, creates a distinct exception for cases where the award is five years or more old and possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid. The proviso attached to Section 24(2) operates as an exception within that sub-section and cannot be lifted into Section 24(1)(b), because doing so would make Section 24(1)(b) otiose and create inconsistency between the two sub-sections. The settled rule of construction is that a proviso ordinarily qualifies the provision to which it is appended and does not enlarge or rewrite the main enactment.
Conclusion: The proviso belongs to Section 24(2) and not to Section 24(1)(b). Since the award in the present case was not governed by Section 24(2), the respondents were not entitled to compensation under the Act of 2013.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
