ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that old claims cannot be revived or projects held up by unending litigation under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.A five-judge bench led by Justice Arun Mishra pronounced its judgement in the case which had earlier seen two contradictory judgements, in 2014 and 2018, over whether land acquired by the government would lapse if it fails to deposit the compensation within five years in the bank account of the landowners.No one can say reopen acquisition of land on Raisina Hills, for example, said the bench, which included Justices Indira Banerjee , Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S Ravindra Bhat.The case had drawn much attention owing to demands raised by some landowners for recusal of Justice Mishra as he had earlier given a similar ruling while sitting on a smaller three-judge bench. Justice Mishra refused to recuse himself and went on to hear the case in a bench of five judges.The five-judge bench ruled that acquisition proceedings, initiated under the old law would lapse only if they had been initiated five years before January 1, 2014, the day the new law come into being, only if the state had not taken possession of the law and failed to tender the compensation for it. The time of five years is provided for authorities to take action, not to sleep over the matter, it said. Proceedings will lapse only due to lethargy or default on the part of the authorities and for no other reason. It cannot therefore include any other reason such as a court order. In such a case, the landowner would be entitled to get higher compensation under the new law. The state would then have to initiate the acquisition proceedings afresh.Existing land acquisition proceedings would not, however, lapse if compensation was tendered but no possession taken. If possession was taken but no compensation tendered, the landowners would get a higher compensation under the new Act. It would only lapse if the state fails on both counts.The state is absolved any liability for non-payment as long as it has tendered the compensation amount, that is made it unconditionally available and the landowner has refused to receive it. Merely if a landowner refuses to accept it, it cannot be said that he has not been paid.Once amount has been tendered that would amount to payment, the court said. Merely because a person who has received compensation clings on to possession of the land the proceedings cannot be said to have lapsed. In cases where landowners have litigated successfully it may not be possible for the authorities or state officials to take the possession or to make payment of the compensation, the bench said. Hence, the state cannot be penalised by insisting that the proceedings must lapse, it said.