AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 1206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Acquisition Act, 1894 ('1894 Act', for short) will apply even after the repeal of the 1894 Act, or the twelve-month period specified in Section 25 of the 2013 Act will apply for the awards made under Clause (a) of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act? Subsequent to the decision on the aforesaid question of law, we shall consider the second aspect - whether the award dated 30th October 2014 is within the permissible time-limit or whether the acquisition proceedings have lapsed? To answer this question, we shall also examine whether the award claimed to have been passed on 30th October 2014 is backdated and whether the date has been changed by manipulating the award? For convenience and clarity, we would deal with the two issues separately. 3. In order to answer the legal question, some elemental facts are required to be noted. The State of Maharashtra, on 16th June 2011, had issued a notification Under Section 4 4. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon - (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that eff....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Sub-section (1) irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) Under Section 5A, Sub-section (2): Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification Under Section 4, Sub-section (1), - (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) Published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification: Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly out of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. Explanation 1 - In computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been set aside. The High Court also agreed with the landowners that the award purportedly made on 30th October 2014 was backdated. Discerning negligence on the part of the officers, which necessitates fresh acquisition proceedings thereby causing great financial burden to the acquisition authority, directions have been issued to the State of Maharashtra to conduct an inquiry against the Collector, Bhandara and the Land Acquisition Officer, Bhandara. Consideration and decision on interpretation of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act 5. Section 11A of the 1894 Act reads: 11A. Period within which an award shall be made (1) The Collector shall make an award Under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. Explanation - In computing the period of two years referred to in this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of twelve months from the date of publication of the declaration Under Section 19 and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that the appropriate Government shall have the power to extend the period of twelve months if in its opinion, circumstances exist justifying the same: Provided further that any such decision to extend the period shall be recorded in writing and the same shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of the authority concerned. xx xx xx 114. Repeal and saving. - (1) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) is hereby repealed. (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act the repeal Under Sub-section (1) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeals." 7. Before we interpret the above provisions, it would be appropriate to refer to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which deals with the effect of repeal of any statute or Regulation and reads: 6. Effect of repeal -- Where this Act, or any Central Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actment directly or by necessary implication clamours that it will not apply to certain matters. 8. Section 114 of the 2013 Act repeals the 1894 Act, which ceases to be effective and applicable from the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act. In terms of Sub-section (2) to Section 114, the repeal shall not act so as to prejudice or affect application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. However, the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is subject to "save as otherwise provided" by the 2013 Act. In other words, when it is commanded or imperative by the provisions of the 2013 Act, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act is not to be given legal effect. 9. Sub-section (1) to Section 24 of the 2013 Act is a non-obstante clause. It confers the provision with an overriding status over other provisions. Accordingly, in terms of Sections 24(1) of the 2013 Act, Section 114 of the 2013 Act as well as Section 6 of the General Clauses Act will not apply to the extent hindered by Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. The reason is that Section 114 of the 2013 Act, while accepting the applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, makes its application subject to "save as oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., a Constitution Bench held that where proceedings for acquisition had been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award Under Section 11 of the 1894 Act had been made, the provisions of the 2013 Act would apply limited to determination of compensation. Where, however, an award had been made under the 1894 Act, Clause (b) to Section 24(1) protects the vested rights of the parties. We need not, for the purpose of the present case, elucidate the ratio of the aforementioned judgment on interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, but it is apposite to notice that the Constitution Bench has emphasised that the 2013 Act provides for higher compensation along with provisions for rehabilitation, and that this intended benefit, wherever applicable, should not be taken away. At the same time, on the aspect of legal interpretation, it is observed that full effect has to be given to the provisions contained in Section 24 as it is not for the court to legislate. The courts can and do, in appropriate cases, clear ambiguity in legislations. 13. Dealing with the interplay of vested rights and retrospective application of statutes, Indore Development Authority (supra) refers to several decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly follows this precedent. 15. Clearly, Section 11A of the 1894 Act and Section 25 of the 2013 Act prescribe two different periods of limitation with adverse consequences, as on failure to make the award the acquisition proceedings lapse. The choice is between Section 11A of the 1894 Act and Section 25 of the 2013 Act. In paragraph 21 below we have rejected the State's alternative argument that the legislator has not prescribed any period for making of an award Under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. Absence of precise words or express declaration would not inhibit us from interpreting and exercising the right choice, keeping in view the language as also the object and purpose of Clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. In other words, we have to give effect and meaning to the underlying intention of the Parliament in the words "all the provisions relating to determination of compensation" under the 2013 Act. 16. We begin by examining the phrasing of Clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. We would prefer to read the words "all the provisions relating to determination of compensation" in Section 24(1)(a) as including the period of limitation specified in Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndum, wherein the expression "relating to" has been held to be equivalent to or synonymous with as to "concerning with" and "pertaining to". It has been observed that the expression "pertaining to" is an expression of expansion and not of contraction. The expression "relating to" when used in legislation normally refers to "stand in some relation, to have bearing or concern, to pertain, to refer, to bring into association with or connection with". See judgment of Mitter, J. (paragraph 308) in H.H. Maharajadhiraja Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur of Gwalior etc. v. Union of India and Anr., (1971) 1 SCC 85. Therefore, the expression 'relating to' when used in legislation has to be construed to give effect to the legislative intent when required and necessary by giving an expansive and wider meaning. Given this trend in interpretation, the words "all the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation" must not be imputed a restricted understanding of the word 'relating' only to the substantial provisions on calculation of compensation, that is, Sections 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act. Rather, the expression should be given an expansive meanin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 30(2) requires the Collector to issue individual awards detailing the particulars of compensation payable and details of payment as specified in the First Schedule. As per the First Schedule, the factor/multiplier in case of rural areas can be between one and two, based on the distance from the urban area, and this factor/multiplier is to be notified by the "appropriate government". This aspect is of importance when we examine the second issue and would be adverted to later. Thus, it clearly delineates that until notification of the multiplier is issued by the "appropriate government" for rural areas, compensation in terms of Sub-section (2) to Section 26 cannot be determined. When a multiplier of more than 1 applies, the compensation payable Under Section 26 of the 2013 Act would be higher than the market value of the land. Section 30(1) of the 2013 Act adumbrates that the Collector having determined the total compensation shall, to arrive at the final award, impose 'solatium' of an amount equivalent to 100% of the compensation amount. As per Section 30(3), the landowners in addition to the market value of the land are entitled to an amount calculated at the rate of twel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not pronounced, the acquisition proceedings would lapse defeating the legislative intent behind Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act to save such proceedings. We would, therefore, exercise our choice to arrive at a just, fair and harmonious construction consistent with the legislative intent. A rational approach so as to further the object and purpose of Sections 24 and 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act is required. We are conscious that Section 25 refers to publication of a notification Under Section 19 as the starting point of limitation. In the context of Clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act there would be no notification Under Section 19, but declaration Under Section 6 of the 1894 Act. When the declarations Under Section 6 are valid as on 1st January 2014, it is necessary to give effect to the legislative intention and reckon the starting point. In the context of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, declarations Under Section 6 of the 1894 Act are no different and serve the same purpose as the declarations Under Section 19 of the 2013 Act. Consequently, we hold that in cases covered by Clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, the limitation period for passing/making of an award ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....13 Act. This would be unacceptable and again completely contrary to the legislative intent in enacting Section 25 in the 2013 Act. Section 24 read and as interpreted in Indore Development Authority (supra) would not support such construction. Sensible and purposive construction to avoid absurdities and inconsistencies is, therefore, justified when we interpret Section 25 of the 2013 Act. Whether the award has been passed within the period stipulated Under Section 25 of the 2013 Act or the acquisition proceedings have lapsed? 23. As per the arguments put forth by the Appellants, the award was pronounced on 30th October 2014, which is within the period of twelve months prescribed by Section 25 of the 2013 Act coming into force on 1st January 2014. The landowners, however, dispute the date of publication. The impugned judgment holds that the award, though dated 30th October 2014, has been backdated. However, before we examine this controversy, it would be appropriate to first notice the effect of the stay order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 4274 of 2014. To understand the effect of the said stay order, we must again advert to Sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....language of the interim order and its true effect in redetermination of compensation. The interim order passed by the High Court had inhibited further action on the part of the authorities to proceed with the acquisition of land. Indore Development Authority (supra) refers to a catena of authorities, including Abhey Ram (D) by LRs. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 421, to give fitting meaning to the words "stay of action or proceedings" used in the proviso to Section 11A of the 1894 Act to mean any type of order passed by a court, which in one way or the other prohibits or prevents the authorities from passing an award. This period of inhibition is excluded while computing the period for passing of the award by an authority, Under Section 11A of the 1894 Act. Further, the stay granted in the present case would be applicable to others also who had not obtained stay in that behalf. 26. In Indore Development Authority (supra), with reference to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the Constitution Bench has noticed that there is no similar provision for exclusion of time, though there is express provision for exclusion of time Under Sections 19 and 69 of the 2013 Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay having regard to the context. Accordingly, it was held that Section 24(2) ousts the period spent during the interim stay, and no fault or inaction could be attributed to the authorities when the payment of compensation or taking possession of land was inhibited by operation of a stay order. In arriving at this finding, this Court relied on several judgments and treatises on statutory interpretation which elaborated on legal maxims encapsulated below: * "lex non cogit ad impossibilia" - the law does not expect the performance of the impossible; * "actus curiae neminem gravabi" - an act of the court shall prejudice no man; * "nemo tenetur ad impossibilia" - no one is bound to do an impossibility; and * "impotentia excusat legem" - where a person is disabled from performing a duty created by law, without any default in him, and has no remedy over, there the law will in general excuse him. 28. It was further concluded, based on the maxim "commodum ex-injuria sua nemo habere debet" (meaning: convenience cannot accrue to a party from his own wrong), that the legislation did not intend for relentless litigants to derive the benefit of enhanced com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....10.2014. It is apparent from the documents annexed to the petition and the rejoinder which are not disputed by any of the Respondents that there is a mention of the issuance of the communication by the Town Planning Department to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11.11.2014 pertaining to the land acquisition proceedings in the award. There is an outward entry No. 32 in regard to the communication dated 11.11.2014 in the outward register maintained by the Town Planning Department. This entry shows that indeed a communication was issued by the Town Planning Department to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11.11.2014. The Respondent No. 3 has the audacity to state that they have not received any such communication from the Town Planning Department and the reference to the said communication in the award is a clerical mistake. From outward entry No. 32, we find that this communication was issued by the Town Planning Department to the Special Land Acquisition Officer and from the reference of this communication in the award, it is apparent that the special land acquisition officer had received the communication dated 11.11.2014 before passing the award and, hence a reference....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....maintained only till 06.05.2014 as a copy of the roznama, that was received by the Petitioners on 13.03.2015 and that is placed on record, shows that the roznama is maintained till 06.05.2014 only. Had the roznama been maintained till the end, this Court could have gauged as to when the award was actually passed. It is surprising that the Respondent No. 3 has taken a stand that the roznama was never maintained after 06.05.2014 as the proceedings were in the office of the Commissioner. Even assuming that the proceedings were in the office of the Commissioner, if they were received before 30.10.2014, as the award was purportedly passed on that date, the roznama could have been maintained after the proceedings were received from the office of the Commissioner however, the roznama ends on 06.05.2014. We do not know whether all the subsequent pages of the roznama have been destroyed with a view to conceal as to what happened in the land acquisition proceedings after 06.05.2014. 32. The stand of the Appellant(s) before the High Court and before us is that the High Court had erroneously quashed the award on the basis of prima facie findings that for the same communication of the Town P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecomes insignificant unless the High Court was to go a step further and hold that the award was not made even until 20th March 2015. In that view of the matter, the conclusion reached by us in the present appeals is inevitable and it must follow that the acquisition proceedings in question had not lapsed in law. 35. Arguendo, if we were to entertain the afterthought plea raised by the landowners before this Court for the first time that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed even on account of the mandate of Section 25 of the 2013 Act, the same needs to be negatived for more than one reason. First, no factual foundation has been set out by the landowners including to assert that the stated award was not made even till 20th March 2015 nor was the High Court called upon to examine that fact. Secondly, the landowners "themselves" have stated (admitted) that the Commissioner had given permission/approval to the draft award on 20th November 2014 As stated in paragraph B (ii) (Page 2) of the Written Arguments filed on behalf of Respondent/claimants, dated 02.09.2021 in reference to the findings of fact noted by the High Court in the impugned judgment at the end of paragraph 7 thereof,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in a case covered by Clause (a) to Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. Sub-section (1) to Section 37 of the 2013 Act as well as Sub-section (1) to Section 12 of the 1894 Act state that the award shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and the persons interested. It would not matter whether the person interested have appeared before the Collector or not. Further, the award is final and conclusive evidence as of the true area. Sub-section (3) to Section 37 of the 2013 Act requires the Collector to keep open to public and display summary of the entire proceedings undertaken in the case of acquisition of land, including the amount of compensation awarded. These mandates must be complied with, but as they are post the making of the award and, therefore, would not affect the validity of the award when made within the statutory time. Issue of notice by the Collector to the persons interested, which is to be given to the persons not present personally or through the representatives when the award is made, is to be issued immediately, but the issue of notice is not a condition precedent for making the award. Belated issue o....