Will two-year period under Section 11A of Land Acquisition Act 1894 apply even after repeal? Supreme Court answers

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the provision Land Acquisition Act, 1894 prescribing a 2-year period before lapse of land acquisition proceedings will not be applicable after the repeal of the Act and after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 came into force (The Executive Engineer vs. Mahesh)..A Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna observed that considering the object of Sections 24, and 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act, practical absurdities and anomalies could arise if the two year period is applied to awards made under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.“This would mitigate against the underlying legislative intent behind prescription of time for making of an award in respect of saved acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed 1894 Act,” the Court said..The issue arose before the top court after the State of Maharashtra issued a notification under the 1894 Act for acquisition of 103.86 hectares of land on June 16, 2011 which was followed by publication of declarations, the last of which was dated August 8, 2012..On October 30, 2014 the Special Land Acquisition Officer purportedly made an award under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act. The order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer was challenged before the Bombay High Court and the same was allowed..The Bombay High Court held that the award ought to have been passed within two years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 in terms of Section 11A of the 1894 Act..Simplifying the requirement under Section 11A the Supreme Court stated, “Section 11A requires that an award under Section 11 must be passed within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is so made, the proceedings for acquisition of land shall lapse.”.The Court said that Section 24(1)(a) would apply since the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act had not culminated in an award till the repeal of the 1894 Act and this section obviated the necessity to issue a fresh notification under the 2013 Act.“This ‘perseveration of the determination date’ for the computation of compensation for the awards made under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act is a thought through legislative invocation that curtails time delays and cost escalation of infrastructure projects, as well as checks the post-acquisition notification malpractices, and at the same time ensures that the landowners are entitled to the benefit of the enhanced compensation as per the 2013 Act,” said the Bench..The apex court further discussed a judgement of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others where it was held that if proceedings for acquisition were 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.“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," the judgment said..Further relying on the judgment it was highlighted that the Constitution Bench held that the 2013 Act operates prospectively. It was found that Section 114 of the 2013 Act effects a repeal but with certain savings, in accordance with Section 24. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings are preserved under the 1894 Act till the stage of making of the award.“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… 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.”.After a detailed analysis of the language employed in the two provisions, the Court concluded that since the present case is not of divesting vested rights of the landowners on enactment of the 2013 Act, the provision is to be construed as prospective.“The laws relating to limitation have been held to be prospective in the sense that they do not have the effect of reviving the right of action which is already barred on the date of their coming into operation, nor do they have the effect of extinguishing a right of action subsisting on the date. In this sense, the limitation provisions can be procedural in the context of one set of facts and substantive in the context of a different set of facts. Therefore, unless the language of the provision dealing with period of limitation clearly manifests, in express terms or by necessary implication, a contrary intention divesting vested rights, such provision is to be construed as prospective.”.It was held that Section 25 of the 2013 Act would apply to the awards made and published under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.It was further held that the limitation period for passing an award under Section 24(1)(a) would commence from January 1, 2014, the date when the 2013 Act came into force.Therefore, concluding that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed and the award was legal and valid, the appeals were allowed..[Read Judgment]