If land not acquired in 5 yrs, order to lapse: SC

New compensation will be given if not paid already

The Supreme Court on Friday said land acquisition proceedings would be “deemed” to have lapsed if the proceedings for acquiring those lands under the 1894 law resulted neither in taking over the possession of land nor payment of compensation due to “inaction” of authorities for five years or more prior to the 2013 land acquisition law coming into force from January 1, 2014.

The 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, that is tilted in favour of farmers and came into force from January 1, 2014, repealed the antiquated 1894 land acquisition law. The 2013 law was enacted by the Congress-led UPA government.

This was ordered by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, which also included Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat.

The Supreme Court on Friday said that the land acquisition proceedings would be “deemed” to have lapsed if the proceedings for acquiring those lands under the 1894 law had resulted neither in taking over the possession of land nor payment compensation due to the “inaction” of authorities for five years or more prior to 2013 land acquisition law coming into force from January 1, 2014.

The 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, that is tilted in favour of the farmer and came into force from January 1, 2014, had repealed antiquated 1894 land acquisition law. The 2013 law was enacted by Congress led UPA government.

“The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act (2013), the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid”, said a five judge constitution bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra in its judgment.

However, the court said that this period of five years or more would exclude the time consumed on account of interim orders passed by a court. “The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the computation of five years”, judgment said.

Besides Justice Mishra, other judges on the constitution bench are Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Vineet Saran, Justice M. R. Shah and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

Elaborating on it, Justice Mishra said, “In other words, in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse (of the acquisition proceedings).”

The court said this interpreting Section 24(2) of the 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, that provides for situation for the acquisition of land under the 2013 law afresh after terminating the proceedings earlier initiated under 1894 new repealed law.

The Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law says that if an award for acquiring land under 1894 land acquisition law has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of 2013 law but physical possession of the acquired land has not been taken or compensation for the same has not been paid then same would stand lapsed. And if government still wants to acquire that land then fresh proceedings under the2013 land law had to be initiated.

In its conclusion, the court said that under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the award is not made as on January 1, 2014, “there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the provisions” of the 2013 law.

The court further said that in case compensation has not been deposited in case of the majority of the land holdings, the landowners on the date of notification for acquiring land under 1894 law, shall be entitled to compensation under the 2013 law.

ACQUISITION OF those lands whose possession has not been taken, nor compensation paid under 1894 law, would be deemed to have lapsed under 2013 land law, clarifies SC.