Land Acquisition Act matters: Live Updates from the hearing in Supreme Court

The hearing in the batch of cases pertaining to Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ( Land Acquisition Act, 2013 ) is currently underway at the Supreme Court.

. A Constitution Bench of Justices Arun Mishra , Indira Banerjee , Vineet Saran , MR Shah , and Ravindra Bhat is hearing the cases.

. Live updates follow:

. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta resumes his submissions. The colon used at the end of section 24(2) shows that the Legislature intended for the proviso to be applicable only to this specific provision and not to 24(1)(b), Mehta while arguing on the rules of interpretation of statutes with respect to punctuation marks Colon at the end of Section 24(2) denotes that the proviso is the exception to the text immediately preceding the colon, which is the general principle under Section 24(2), Mehta The legislature would never have intended to end the provision under Section 24(2) with a colon. A colon means that the legislature is taking a pause between general principle and its exception, Mehta Mehta argues on meaning of proviso under S. 24(2) and why it should not be read with S. 24(1)(b): If a proviso is lifted from where the legislature placed it and read it along with another provision, it will not be a process of interpretation but that of legislating If award is made five years or before, possession not taken, and compensation not paid, it would lead to complete lapse process would have to be initiated afresh under new Act, Mehta Justice Bhat : 24(1)(b) will per se apply when award is paid. If you visualise the provisions, 24(1)(b) is a principle, S. 24(2) is an exception to it and the proviso under S. 24(2) is an exception to the exception Mehta : Legislature wanted to balance out the exigencies and therefore it was said that if majority people have been paid then it will not be equitable for the proceedings to lapse and thus a proviso was added to S.24(2) Justice Bhat: Justice 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b) are in trie sense the transitional provisions Mehta: Legislature wanted to give maximum benefit under the new Act and therefore the proviso is under S.24(2) and not under 24(1)(b) because it would not work otherwise. Mehta: The proviso cannot be treated as a proviso to S. 24(1)(b) as the sub-section makes no reference to “deposit” Justice Bhat: We return to the first question then, what is the meaning of lapsing. Mehta : “Or” has to be read as “and” and there will be complete lapse if both are not done. Justice Mishra : Proviso is saving the lapse. If there is no vesting, there will be lapse. Mehta: There is one more anomalous situation which would arise if “or” is not read as “and.” . Post Lunch Updates

. Bench assembles for the post lunch hearing in the batch of petitions concerning the Land Acquisition Act 2013. Mehta: Section 24 can’t be used to give cause of action for twenty years. Justice Indira Banerjee : There is a difference. Section contemplates not taking possession, it does not contemplate wrongful possession. Mehta: My submission is that S. 24(2) needs to be narrowly construed. Justice Mishra: Five years is reasonable time for payment to be made. Lapsing should be enforced if you have failed Mehta : Possession gives me vested right. Justice Bhat: But it’s not restrospective right Senior Advocate Anup Chaudhary makes submissions. Chaudhary: If possession is not taken, then proceedings would lapse. If no compensation paid, then no lapsing. Or has to be read as or. Chaudhary: The two will have to be read together if you make it conjunctive Justice Mishra: If possession is not taken but compensation is paid, the proviso will come into play?; Chaudhary: Yes. Chaudhary: There will be enhanced compensation if the minority land owners not paid. The proviso comes into play when possession is taken but compensation not paid. ASG Pinky Anand making submissions now. Anand: For all purposes, S 24 is in the context of the old Act. Anand arguing on the interpretation of “account”, says if the legislature meant for it to be bank account, “bank account” would have been specified. Anand: Account of beneficiary has to be construed to be all the accounts in the treasury. Anand concludes and says that her arguments are addition and supplementary to those made by SG Tushar Mehta. Anand seeks liberty to add in rebuttal later. Counsel for MIL Nagpur submits that there cannot be different consequences for the same proceedings. Counsel for MIL Nagpur, Advocate RM Bhangde adds that the words “proceedings” has been used throughout S.24 while the word “majority” is used only in S.24(2). Bhangde: My concern is regarding the words “deposited in the account of beneficiary” have to be construed as paid. Bhangde: There are three provisions in old and new Acts provide for consequence of non payment, S.34 of old Act, Sections 24 and 77 of the new Act. The legislature has dealt with different consequences. Justice Saran : Section 77 deals with payment in new Act. In proviso under Section 23, it only deals with deposit in line with provisions of old Act. Bhangde: The legislature intended different interpretations of the words “paid” and “deposited” and has used them separately and provided for different consequences. Bhangde: Unless the entire possession of the land is not taken, there can’t be full lapse. Bhangde submits a note and concludes arguments. Bench rises for the day. . The matters were initially heard on October 15 , when the recusal of Justice Arun Mishra from the case was sought for. After hearing arguments on the question of recusal, the Bench reserved its order. On October 24, such questions were put to bed after Justice Mishra passed a judgment refusing to recuse from the matters.

. Hearing on the merits of the case commenced on November 6. Read a summary the hearing on November 6 here and the hearing on November 7 here.

Land Acquisition Act matters: Live Updates from the hearing in Supreme Court

Bar & Bench

Related Stories