Shivani Thakur
Published on: May 29, 2022, at 17:35 IST
The Bench of Supreme Court comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna, held that in a case where on the date of commencement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no Award has been declared under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, due to the pendency of any proceedings and/or the interim stay granted by the Court.
It was argued before the Court that there is no express provision in Section 24, which does not cover the period during which an interim order was in effect, to prevent the State from making an Award.
It cannot be disputed that there shall be a very huge difference between the quantum of compensation payable under the Act, 1894 and the compensation payable under the Act, 2013.
The Court held, “Therefore, should the State and the Public Exchequer be made to suffer when there is no inaction on the part of the Authority in declaring the Award? The intention of the Parliament while enacting Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 cannot be to give benefit to a litigant, who has obtained a stay order and because of that the award could not be declared and thereafter the litigant may be awarded the compensation as per Act, 2013.”
“It may even result in discrimination between the landowners, whose lands have been acquired under the same notification.”
The Court continued that, “ The principle of restitution is a statutory recognition of the rule of Justice, equity and fair play. The court has inherent jurisdiction to order restitution so as to do complete Justice”.
This is also on the principle that an unsuccessful litigant who had the benefit of an interim order in his favor cannot take advantage of the same on the enforcement of the Act, 2013.
Hence, the Court Observed, “If at the instance of a landowner, who has challenged the acquisition, an interim order has been passed by a Court is successful then the proceeding of acquisition or the acquisition notification would be quashed. Then there would be no occasion to determine any compensation.”
“But on the other hand, if a landowner, who has the benefit of an interim order in his favour whilst a challenge is made to the acquisition, is unsuccessful, he cannot then contend that he must be paid compensation under the provision of the Act, 2013 on its enforcement, whereas a landowner, who did not have the benefit of any interim order is paid compensation determined under the provisions of the Act, 1894, which is lesser than what would be computed under the Act, 2013.”