On 12th October 2022, the Supreme Court in a division bench comprising of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari observed that Section 24(1)(a) of the LA Act, 2013 talks about the Land Acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 only, it does not talk about any pari materia provision of different statutes. (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) & Ors. V. Nisar Ahmed Ganai & Ors.)
Facts of the Case:
The lands in question were sought to be acquired under the provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990. The notification was issued u/s 4 of the said act and the lands were sought to be acquired for the appellants. The declaration u/s 6 of the act was issued on 12.11.2018. the original petitioners filed the petitions before the J&K HC challenging the proceedings initiated under the J&K Land Acquisition Act SVT 1990. During the pendency of the petitions, the State Act of 1990 was repealed. During the hearing of the case the counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners would be satisfied, if instead of quashing the land acquisition proceeding, determination of compensation is made in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, 2013. The counsel for appellants said that the acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the State Act of 1990, Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable. Moreover, in view of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with subclause (13) of Clause 2 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 the repeal of the Act shall not affect the rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued or incurred under any law so repealed and that any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued and enforced as if Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 has not been passed. But the HC passed a judgement allowing the writ petitions and directing the appellants to determine the compensation of the acquired lands in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013. Hence, the present appeals.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The counsel for the Appellants submitted that, “in view of Clause 2(13) of the Order, 2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the rights, liabilities, and obligations acquired, accrued or incurred under the Repeal Law vis. State Act of 1990 stands saved and would continue under the said Act. Even otherwise considering Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013, with respect to the acquisition under the State Act of 1990, Act, 2013 shall not be applicable at all. Section 24 of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable only in a case where the acquisition under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been initiated. Non-¬passing of the award which was due to the stay granted by the High Court cannot be a ground to apply Section 24 of the Act, 2013.” The case of Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. was referred by the counsel.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents submitted that. “neither the possession of the lands in question have been taken over nor the compensation has been paid as the award was not declared. The reliance placed by the appellants on the case of Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. is wholly misconceived, as the same shall not apply to the facts of the instant case. However, where no award has been passed under the J & K Act before its repeal and consequently no right to compensation had been matured, neither clause 2(13) of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 nor Section 6 of the General Clauses Act shall be employed to nullify the express provision contained in Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 insofar as it provides that where no award is passed under the repealed Act, the provisions of enhanced compensation under the Act, 2013 would apply while not affecting the land acquisition proceedings under the repealed law as such. Even the order of status quo was in some of the writ petitions and did not extend to other lands. It is submitted that despite the same, no award was passed.”
Observations and Judgement of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that, “the lands in question have been acquired under the provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990. Therefore, the acquisition of the lands in question is not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It cannot be disputed that prior to the enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 and promulgation of the Jammu & Kashmir (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was not applicable at all so as far as the State of Jammu & Kashmir is concerned. It is only on the enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, Act, 2013 shall be made applicable. Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act talks about the land acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 only and it does not speak about any other pari materia provision of different statutes.” While referring to the case of Bangalore Development Authority & Anr., the court added that “the Act, 2013 repeals only the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not any other Central or State enactment dealing with the acquisition.” Therefore, “Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable and the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable, both on facts as well as on law.”
The appeals were allowed and the impugned common judgment and order passed by the HC were quashed and set aside.
Case: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) & Ors. V. Nisar Ahmed Ganai & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 6778 - 6780 Of 2022 And Civil Appeal Nos. 6781 - 6783 Of 2022
Bench: Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari
Date: OCTOBER 12, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :