TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules in favor of DMRC, denies enhanced compensation under Act of 2013. Clarifies Section 24(2) proviso application.</h1> <h3>Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd Versus Tarun Pal Singh and Ors</h3> Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd Versus Tarun Pal Singh and Ors - TMI Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 24(1)(b) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act of 2013).2. Interpretation of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013.3. Continuation of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act of 1894).Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013:The core issue was whether the provision of Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 is governed by the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 24 or if it should be read as part of Section 24(2). The land acquisition for Delhi Metro Railways was initiated under the Act of 1894, and the award was pronounced on 14.09.2011. The compensation was deposited by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) before the commencement of the Act of 2013. The High Court directed that compensation should be paid under the Act of 2013, which DMRC contested.2. Interpretation of the Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013:The Supreme Court discussed the rules regarding the construction of provisos, emphasizing that a proviso is meant to qualify or except something from the main enactment and should not be construed as enlarging the scope of the enactment. The Court held that the proviso to Section 24(2) must be read as part of Section 24(2) and not Section 24(1)(b). This interpretation avoids inconsistency and ensures that the legislative intent is preserved. The proviso to Section 24(2) deals with a situation where the award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013, and if compensation for the majority of land holdings has not been deposited, the acquisition does not lapse, but the beneficiaries are entitled to compensation under the Act of 2013.3. Continuation of Land Acquisition Proceedings under the Act of 1894:The Court clarified that Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 provides that if an award has been made under the Act of 1894, the proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the Act of 1894 as if it had not been repealed. This provision is distinct from Section 24(2), which applies if the award was made five years or more before the commencement of the Act of 2013, and either possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in holding that the compensation is required to be paid under the Act of 2013, as the proviso to Section 24(2) does not apply to the present case where the award was made within five years before the commencement of the Act of 2013.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, ruling that the respondents are not entitled to compensation under the Act of 2013. The appeals by DMRC were allowed, and the special leave petitions seeking enhanced compensation under the Act of 2013 were dismissed. The Court reaffirmed that the proviso to Section 24(2) should be read as part of Section 24(2) and not Section 24(1)(b), ensuring that the legislative intent and the distinct application of these provisions are maintained.
TaxTMI 