# HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS v. MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [2022] 17 S.C.R. 1079
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-07-28
- **Bench:** A. M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka, C. T. Ravikumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/haryana-state-industrial-and-infrastructure-development-corporation-ltd-ors-v-35526
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(1)-
"initiated" - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4 -Meaning and
interpretation of"initiated" in s.24(1) of the 2013 Act, with reference
to land acquisition proceedings under the L.A Act - Held: For the
purposes of sub-section (1) of s.24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings
under the L.A. Act shall be treated as initiated on publication of a
notification under sub-section (1) of s.4 of the L.A. Act -Further,
when Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of s.24 of the 2013 Act is
applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the L.A. Act -
However, only for the determination of compensation amount, the
provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied - Interpretation of
Statutes -Purposive construction.
Directing the appeals to be listed before appropriate Bench
for disposal on merits, the Court
HELD : 1.1 A perusal of Section 24 would reveal that
passing of an Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act is the key
factor in deciding the manner and nature of continuance of the
land acquisition proceedings. A scanning of Section 24(1)(a) would
reveal that if land acquisition proceeding was initiated under the
L.A. Act, but no award was passed under Section 11 thereof, then,
all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the "determination of
compensation" would apply. At the same time, if upon initiation
of acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act, an award under
Section 11 of the L.A. Act was passed, then, such proceedings
shall continue under the provisions of the L.A. Act itself, as if the
same had not been repealed. [Para 8][1093-C-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
1.2 The legislative intention behind bringing up the 2013
Act was to have a unified enactment facilitating land acquisition
for industrialization, infrastructure and urbanization projects in a
timely and transparent manner and at the same time, providing
for just and fair compensation, to make adequate provision for
rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for affected persons
and their families. The word 'initiated' has to be construed with a
view to implement the aforesaid twin purposes of providing fair
and just compensation and facilitating acquisition of land for
industrialization, infrastructure and urbanization projects. The
impact of 'initiation' of land acquisition proceedings and its
culmination in an award under Section 11 of the L.A Act and also
non-culmination in such an award has already been referred to.
For a proper and purposive construction of the word 'initiated',
in the contextual situation it will not be inappropriate to look into
the legislative history of Section 24 of the 2013 Act as well, as
explained in the written submission filed on behalf of HSIIDC/
STATE/COMMITTEE dated 11.04.2022. However, it is not
deemed necessary to refer to or to deal with it, in detail. In short,
it is stated therein that the events happened prior to the drafting
of Section 24, as it exists on the statute book today, is a safe
guide to cull out the legislative intent in formulating Section 24
in the 2013 Act, by the legislature. Furthermore, it is stated
therein that the legislature was fully aware of the fact that lands
acquired under the L.A. Act were already being used for several
public purposes and more particularly for infrastructural projects
and large number of acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act,
relating large number of public projects for various public
purposes, are in progress at various stages. Hence, lapsing of
everything would be seriously detrimental to public interest and
at the same time, the interest of land holders is also taken into
account. The consideration of all such relevant aspects and the
pros and cons made the legislature to come up with a balancing
provision under Section 24(1)(a) and clauses therein, in the 2013
Act. This was incorporated as a balancing provision for controlling
the extent of retrospect

## Text

_Characters 0–39,982 of 66,227. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39982 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1079
 [2022] 17 S.C.R. 1079
1079
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
v.
MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16631-16632 of 2018)
JULY 28, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, ABHAY S. OKA AND
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(1)-
"initiated" - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.4 -Meaning and
interpretation of"initiated" in s.24(1) of the 2013 Act, with reference
to land acquisition proceedings under the L.A Act - Held: For the
purposes of sub-section (1) of s.24 of the 2013 Act, the proceedings
under the L.A. Act shall be treated as initiated on publication of a
notification under sub-section (1) of s.4 of the L.A. Act -Further,
when Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of s.24 of the 2013 Act is
applicable, the proceedings shall continue as per the L.A. Act -
However, only for the determination of compensation amount, the
provisions of the 2013 Act shall be applied - Interpretation of
Statutes -Purposive construction.
Directing the appeals to be listed before appropriate Bench
for disposal on merits, the Court
HELD : 1.1 A perusal of Section 24 would reveal that
passing of an Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act is the key
factor in deciding the manner and nature of continuance of the
land acquisition proceedings. A scanning of Section 24(1)(a) would
reveal that if land acquisition proceeding was initiated under the
L.A. Act, but no award was passed under Section 11 thereof, then,
all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the "determination of
compensation" would apply. At the same time, if upon initiation
of acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act, an award under
Section 11 of the L.A. Act was passed, then, such proceedings
shall continue under the provisions of the L.A. Act itself, as if the
same had not been repealed. [Para 8][1093-C-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
1.2 The legislative intention behind bringing up the 2013
Act was to have a unified enactment facilitating land acquisition
for industrialization, infrastructure and urbanization projects in a
timely and transparent manner and at the same time, providing
for just and fair compensation, to make adequate provision for
rehabilitation and resettlement mechanism for affected persons
and their families. The word 'initiated' has to be construed with a
view to implement the aforesaid twin purposes of providing fair
and just compensation and facilitating acquisition of land for
industrialization, infrastructure and urbanization projects. The
impact of 'initiation' of land acquisition proceedings and its
culmination in an award under Section 11 of the L.A Act and also
non-culmination in such an award has already been referred to.
For a proper and purposive construction of the word 'initiated',
in the contextual situation it will not be inappropriate to look into
the legislative history of Section 24 of the 2013 Act as well, as
explained in the written submission filed on behalf of HSIIDC/
STATE/COMMITTEE dated 11.04.2022. However, it is not
deemed necessary to refer to or to deal with it, in detail. In short,
it is stated therein that the events happened prior to the drafting
of Section 24, as it exists on the statute book today, is a safe
guide to cull out the legislative intent in formulating Section 24
in the 2013 Act, by the legislature. Furthermore, it is stated
therein that the legislature was fully aware of the fact that lands
acquired under the L.A. Act were already being used for several
public purposes and more particularly for infrastructural projects
and large number of acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act,
relating large number of public projects for various public
purposes, are in progress at various stages. Hence, lapsing of
everything would be seriously detrimental to public interest and
at the same time, the interest of land holders is also taken into
account. The consideration of all such relevant aspects and the
pros and cons made the legislature to come up with a balancing
provision under Section 24(1)(a) and clauses therein, in the 2013
Act. This was incorporated as a balancing provision for controlling
the extent of retrospectivity and for curtailing the erosion of rights
of land holders. [Paras 22-24][1098-D-E; 1099-A-C]
Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat (1987) 1
SCC 213 : [1987] 1 SCR 562 - relied on.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1081
1.3 Right to property had ceased to be a fundamental right.
True that it is a human right as also constitutional right. Hence,
compulsory acquisition by scrupulous adherence to the
procedures authorised by law would not violate Article 300-A of
the Constitution. Article 21 mandates that no person shall be
deprived of life or personal liberty, except according to procedures
established by law. Bearing in mind the twin purposes mentioned
hereinbefore, this Court is of the view that they can only be
achieved if the word 'initiated' is taken as the point of time when
section 4 (1) notification is issued and published under the L.A.
Act, in the Official Gazette. Such a construction would embrace
more number of affected persons within the fold of affected
persons entitled to higher amount of compensation by application
of the 2013 Act in the matter of determination of compensation.
As a necessary sequel more extent of land in respect of which
acquisition proceedings have been initiated, for public purposes,
under the L.A. Act for the various ongoing and proposed projects,
would remain protected from lapsing. In this context, it is to be
noted that all the parties in all the appeals in unison would admit
the fact that determination of compensation based on the 2013
Act would be beneficial to the persons affected by acquisition
and entitled to be compensated. The words 'initiate' or 'initiated'
are not defined under the L.A. Act and also under the 2013 Act.
Hence, to ascribe its meaning the dictionary meaning of the word
has to be looked into. In the light of the above discussion and
taking note of the legislative intention this Court has no hesitation
to hold that the point of initiation of land acquisition proceedings
under the L.A. Act for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013
Act, is issuance and publication of Section 4(1) notification in the
official gazette of the appropriate Government. [Paras 26,
27][1100-B, F-H; 1101-A-D]
State of M.P. Vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan (2011) 7
SCC 639 : [2011] 6 SCR 443 - relied on.
1.4 A perusal of Section 4 of the L.A. Act would reveal that
a preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) is issued whenever
it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any locality
is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose. The said
formal expression of the decision takes concrete shape and forms
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVEL.
CORP. LTD. v. MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
only on its Publication in the Official Gazette. It is only upon
issuance and publication of a Notification under Section 4(1) that
any officer, either generally or specially authorised by the
appropriate Government and his servants and workmen could
lawfully enter upon and survey and take levels of any land in such
locality in terms of sub-Section (2) thereof. Section 4(2) would
reveal that besides entering upon and surveying and taking levels
of any land in the locality concerned, the officer authorised by the
Government through the Notification is also empowered to dig
or bore into the sub-soil, to do all other acts necessary to
ascertain whether the land is adapted for all purposes; to set out
the boundaries of the land proposed to be taken and the intended
line of work (if any) proposed to be made thereon; to mark such
levels, boundaries and line by placing marks and cutting trenches
and such other activities mentioned under sub-Section (2) thereof.
In such circumstances, the fact is that it is the issuance and
publication of Section 4(1) notification that will empower the
authorised officer and workmen to enter into and do such
permissible acts and activities. [Paras 28, 29][1101-E-G; 1102E-F]
Babu Barkya Thakur vs. State of Bombay & Ors. AIR
1960 SC 1203 : [1961] SCR 128 - referred to.
1.5 Now, this Court will consider the other common
questions involved in the captioned appeals. They pertain to the
questions as to whether Section 4 notification issued under the
L.A. Act prior to 01.01.2014 (date of commencement of 2013
Act) could continue or survive after 01.01.2014 and, as to whether
Section 6 notification under the L.A. Act could be issued after
01.01.2014. While considering those questions, the purposes and
the legislative history of the 2013 Act will have to be borne in
mind and also the intention of the legislature in drafting the same
in the manner in which it now exists. One crucial aspect
discernible from Section 24(1)(a) has also to be taken note of in
this context. The combined effect of Section 24(1) and clause (a)
thereof is that if land acquisition proceeding under the L.A. Act
was initiated prior to 01.01.2014, the date of coming into force of
the 2013 Act, and if it was not culminated in an award under Section
11 of the L.A. Act, then all the provisions of the 2013 Act relating
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1083
to the determination of compensation should apply to such
acquisition proceedings. Thus, it is obvious that in case of nonpassing of an award in terms of Section 11 of the L.A. Act where
the acquisition proceedings have been initiated prior to
01.01.2014, all provisions under the 2013 Act relating to the
determination of compensation alone would apply to such
acquisition proceedings. In other words, it would mean that in
such circumstances the land acquisition proceedings should
continue, but all the provisions relating to the determination of
compensation under the 2013 Act alone will be applicable to such
proceedings, meaning thereby, the 2013 Act would come into
play only at that stage. There can be no doubt with respect to the
position that between the initiation of land acquisition proceedings
by issuance and publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the
L.A. Act and the stage at which compensation for the acquisition
calls for determination, there are various procedures to be
followed to make the acquisition in accordance with the law. The
question is when Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act makes it clear
with necessary implication that all provisions of the 2013 Act
relating to the determination of compensation alone would be
applicable to such proceedings initiated under the L.A. Act but,
not culminated in an award, how the procedures are to be
regulated during the intervening period till the proceedings reach
the stage of determination of compensation. There cannot be any
uncertainty on that aspect. The procedures to be undertaken and
the manner in which they are to be regulated cannot remain
uncertain. They are conducted either in the manner provided
under the L.A. Act or in the manner provided under the 2013
Act. But then, in view of Section 24(1)(a), the provisions relating
to the determination of compensation alone can be applied to
such proceedings or in other words, there is only a restricted
application of the provisions of the 2013 Act in relation to such
proceedings. The inevitable conclusion can only be that what is
applicable to the various procedures to be undertaken during
the period up to the stage of determination of compensation are
those prescribed under the L.A. Act. Without such a construction,
the provisions under Section 24(1)(a) would not work out, in view
of the restrictive application of the 2013 Act. Any construction of
the said provision without taking into the legislative intention,
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVEL.
CORP. LTD. v. MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
referred hereinbefore would defeat the legislative intention as
also the very objects of the 2013 Act. Certainly, it would not be in
public interest to allow such proceedings to lapse or allow the
authorities to follow the procedures during such period according
to their sweet will. A uniform procedure has to be followed in
respect of such proceedings. The acquisitions initiated for public
purposes should go on in a fair and transparent manner with a
view to achieve the intent and purport of the 2013 Act and at the
same time, the persons affected shall have definite idea about
the manner in which procedures would be conducted. The Party
'B' would not be justified in describing such situations of necessity
and the consequential application of provisions which are actually
saved on account of the construction of Section 24 as an attempt
to bring the words expressly employed in Section 24(1)(b) and
absent in Section 24(1)(a), by indirect method to Section 24(1)(a)
of the 2013 Act. The aforesaid conclusions and findings would
make the contentions of Party 'B' that Section 4(1) notification
issued prior to 01.01.2014 could not survive after 01.01.2014
and also that Section 6 notification under the L.A. Act could not
be issued after 01.01.2014, unsustainable. In fact, all such
procedures and formalities shall be continued till the
determination of compensation by applying all the provisions for
determination of compensation, under the 2013 Act. A contraconstruction, in view of the restrictive application of the provisions
to such proceedings during its continuance, would make the
provisions under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act
unworkable.[Paras 31, 32][1103-D-H; 1104-A-H; 1105-A-C]
Shiv Kumar and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2019)
10 SCC 229 - referred to.
1.6 For the purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the
2013 Act, the proceedings under the L.A. Act shall be treated as
initiated on publication of a notification under sub-section (1) of
Section 4 of the L.A. Act. When Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of
Section 24 of the 2013 Act is applicable, the proceedings shall
continue as per the L.A. Act. However, only for the determination
of compensation amount, the provisions of the 2013 Act shall be
applied. [Para 34][1105-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1085
Laxman Lal (Dead) Through LRs. & Anr. V. State of
Rajasthan Civil Appeal No.6392 of 2003; Offshore
Holdings Private Limited V. Bangalore Development
Authority (2011) 3 SCC 139; Maharashtra Vidarbha
Irrigation Development Corpn. Vs. Mahesh &Ors.
(2022) 2 SCC 772, Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs.
Ashalatha S. Guram (1986) 4 SCC 447 : [1986] SCR
866; Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs.
State of Rajasthan (1975) 4 SCC 296: [1975] 2 SCR
68; V.K.M. Kattha Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of
Haryana (2013) 9 SCC 338 : [2013] 10 SCR 33; M/s.
Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. Vs. Gustavo Ranato Da
Cruz Pinto & Ors. (1985) 2 SCC 152 : [1985] 2 SCR
937- referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1986] SCR 866
referred to
Para 7
[1975] 2 SCR 68
referred to
Para 10
[2013] 10 SCR 33
referred to
Para 10
[1961] SCR 128
referred to
Para 11
[1985] 2 SCR 937
referred to
Para 11
[1987] 1 SCR 562
relied on
Para 21
[2011] 6 SCR 443
relied on
Para 26
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
NOS.16631-16632 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2017 and 15.09.2017
of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.4371
of 2015.
With
Slp (C) Nos.13883, 16585, 16569, 16612, 16628 of 2018, Slp (C)
D.no.32828 of 2018, Slp (C) Nos.26059, 28961, 28941, 28959, 28949 of
2018, 2886, 7504 of 2019, Slp (C) D.no.8299 of 2019, Slp (C) Nos. 9194,
14181, 15674 of 2019, 13884, 16583, 16580, 16613, 16574, 16562, 16564,
16607, 16604, 18939, 16595, 16560, 16582, 16573, 16591, 16587, 16558,
16610, 16614, 16570, 16567, 22288, 18942, 16629 of 2018, Slp (C)
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVEL.
CORP. LTD. v. MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
D.no.33145 of 2018, Slp (C) Nos.28962, 28954, 28940, 28939, 28956,
28953, 28951, 28948 of 2018, Slp (C) D. No.37195 of 2018, Slp (C)
Nos.28952, 18950, 19705, 16626, 16622, 16621, 18947, 16620, 18973,
18969, 19703, 18945, 18968, 18962, 19697, 18957, 18958, 18960, 18964,
19706, 18949, 22291, 24221, 24218, 24227, 24224 of 2018, Slp (C)
D.nos.31330, 31858, 32821 Of 2018, Slp (C) No.26058 of 2018, Slp (C)
D.nos.33273, 33276 of 2018, Slp (C) No.28946 of 2018, Slp (C)
Nos.2881-2883 of 2019, Slp (C) D.no.171 of 2020, Slp (C) Nos.18943,
18938, 18948, 24219, 18975, 16609, 18946, 23433-23444, 19711, 22292,
22294, 22295, 22290, 22298, 23446, 23445 of 2018, Slp (C) Nos.2880,
2988-2990, 2884, 2877, 2878, 2885, 2887, 2879, 2888-2890, 3775-3778,
3782, 3780, 3786, 3788, 6496, 5149, 5148, 7496-7498, 6729, 7469, 7505,
7506, 6732, 7471, 6735, 7499, 7909, 7912, 5939, 7490, 7501, 7466, 7715,
7915, 7916, 7907, 7908, 8380, 7910, 7911, 7906, 7914, 7917, 9186-9187,
9188, 8381, 9197, 9180, 9191, 8600, 8379, 10001, 10000 of 2019, Slp (C)
D.no.9289 of 2019, Slp (C) Nos.9176, 9189, 10002, 10604, 10003, 9196,
10995, 9202, 10063, 14490, 14551, 14533, 14466, 17439, 16415, 14556,
14594, 19500, 14271, 16423, 17933-17934, 19012, 24752 of 2019, Slp
(C) No.14253 of 2020, Slp (C) No.22217 of 2019, Slp (C) D.no.10499 of
2019, Slp (C) No.14262 of 2019, Slp (C) D.no.21828 of 2019, Slp (C)
Nos.23354, 23357 of 2019, Slp (C) D.no.22667 of 2019, Slp (C) No.20183
of 2019, Slp (C) D.nos.26930, 26936 of 2019, Slp (C) Nos.24751, 24754,
23704, 27500 of 2019, Slp (C) No.15601 of 2020, Slp (C) D.nos.410,
524, 530, 11217, 11218, 11219, 11220, 11221, 11222, 11379, 22557, 23618,
25048 of 2020, Slp (C) No.113 of 2022
Tushar Mehta, SG , N. Venkataraman, ASG, B. K. Satija, Addl.
AG, Anil Grover, Alok Sangwan, Sr. AAGs, Saurabh Mishra, B.K. Stija,
Ajay Bansal, AAGs, Manoj Swarup, Ranjit Kumar, Shyam Divan, Mrs.
Deepika V. Marwaha, Narender Hooda, Anil K. Kher, Aashish Chopra,
Rameshwar Singh Malik, Neeraj Jain, D.N. Goburdhun, Neeraj Kumar
Jain, Sr. Advs., Vishwa Pal Singh, Rajat Nair, Sanjay K. Visen, Mrinal
Mazumdar, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Prathiba Yadav, Parfull Singh,
Rahul Kuurana, Navin Gupta, Suresh Kumar Bhan, Sanjay Kumar Visen,
Ankit Swarup, Neelmani Pant, Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Raghav Bhatia,
Siddharth Batra, Ms. Archna Yadav, Ms. Shivani Chawla, Chinmay
Dubey, Rishabh Sancheti, Ms. Padma Priya, Anchit Bhandari, Sudipto
Sircar, Ms. Saloni Bhandari, K. Paari Vendhan, Amir Singh Pasrich,
Karan Bahmani, Ms. Meera Mathur, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Aditya
Bhattacharya, Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, S. S. Jauhar, Ms. Sunieta
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1087
Ojha, Ms. Smita Maan, Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Gagan Gupta, Vinay
K. Shalimdira, Saksham Maheshwari, Ms. Rounika Johar, Ms. Worthing
Kasar, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Ms. Aastha Mehta, Ms. Vishakha, Ms.
Deepanwita Priyanka, Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Ashwani Kumar, Ravi
Bharuka, Ankit Agarwal, Siddhartha Jha, B. K. Satija, Gaurav Yadava,
Ms. Veena Bansal, R. C. Kaushik, Sumit Kumar Sharma , Anurag
Kulharia, Apoorv Yadav, Vipul Dahiya, Sandeep, Dr. Monika Gusain,
Aditya Soni, Nasir Ahmad, Mohd. Muzahir Husain, Emamuddin Azmi,
Syed Rehan, Ms. Sundri, Ms. Kajal Kumari, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda,
Ms. Aadiya Siddiqui, Vedant Pardhan, M.L. Sharma, Rajat Sharma, Sushil
K. Sharma, Ms. Minakshi Sharma, Subhasish Bhowmick, Rohit Kumar
Singh, Syed Hasan Isfahani, Syed Mohd. Hasan, V. Jayraman, Paevez
Zaidi, Rahul Kumar Gupta, Ms. Chandni Arora, Shubham V. Gawande,
Siddharth Mittal, Prabhat Kumar, Kshitiz Chuhan, Shoeb Alam, D.S.
Parmar, Bijender S. Choudhury, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S.K. Rajora,
Akhileshwar Jha, Ms. Deepali Hooda, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Deepak
Goel, Dr. M. S. Verma, Ms. Richa Verma, Mahender Kumar, Deepak
Bansal, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Ramesh Lal Bhatia, Deepender Hooda,
Ms. Jyoti, Atishi Dipankar, Ms. Vernika Tomar, Sukant Vikram,
Anshumaan Sahni, Aditya Singh, Tathagat Harshvardhan, Shubham Singh,
Rajiv Dalal, Pankaj Yadav, Shubham Singh, C. Solomon, Ms.Nayan
Maggo, S. Nagarajan, Daya Krishan Sharma, Rohit Vats, Ms. Nisha
Gaur, Shubham Rana, Dr. Shiva Sharma, Ashok Kumar Gupta Ii,
Bhargava V. Desai, Kapil Kher, Kunal Kher, Utkaras Vats, Ms. Aditi
Diwan, Bharat Beriwal, Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Vanita
Bhargava, Ms. Trishala Trivedi, Pratyush, M/S. Khaitan & Co., Navneet
Chaudhary, Robin David, Dheeraj A. Philip, Samuel David, Atul Kumar,
Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rajiv Ranjan, Tarun Pilania,
Dr. Ajay Kumar, Kaushal Yadav, Vivekanand Rana, Pramod Kumar,
Ms. Akansha Rai, Ms. Apeksha Rai, Ms. Yashoda Kaiyar, Ms. Kritiya
Pandey, Ms. Shweta Yadav, Shafik Ahmad, Ms. Seema Patnaha, Nand
Lal Kumar Mishra, Pawan Singh, Prithvi Pal, Aftab Ali Khan, M.Z.
chaudhary, Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Ali Safeer Farooqui, Tehsheena Z. Husain,
Ali Safeer Farooq, Shoaib Khan, Arvind Kumar Kanva, K. Paari Vendhan,
S. K. Verma, Somiran Sharma, Ms. Nitika Sharma, Ms. Rupa Pathania,
Ms. Swati Dayalan, Mohit Chaudhary, Ms. Puja Sharma, Kunal Sachdeva,
Chowdhary Zulfkar Ali, Balwinder Singh Suri, Paras Mithal, Ms. Mahima
Ahuja, Parveen Kumar, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar, Tushar Bathija,
Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Ms. Anjali Dubey, Narender Kumar Verma,
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVEL.
CORP. LTD. v. MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
Abhay Kumar, Kumar Milind, Shagun Ruhil, Shankar Divate, Ms. Anzu.
K. Varkey, Jitesh Malik, Ms. Anisha Dahiya, Ms. Beena, Satish Kumar,
Praveen Swarup, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Ms. Gunjan Sinha Jain,
Ramkrishna Veerendra, G.D. Shrama, Ram Naresh Yadav, Amit K. Nain,
Veerendra Kumar, Vaibhav Niti, Devashish Bharuka, Ms. Madhavi
Agrawal, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Mrs. Pratima Yadav, Puran
Mal Saini, Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, D. Subramanyam, Pati Raj Yadav, Ritesh
Patil, Kasoju Mahesh Chary, Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, Mohit Kumar Gupta,
Ms. Ruma Pathak, Ms. Sarika Verma, Karan Kapoor, Manik Kapoor,
Shubham Bhalla, Bijender S. Chaudhary, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, S.K.
Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Ms. Deepali Hooda, S. L. Aneja, Parmanand
Yadav, Ms. Sajal Singhai, Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan,
Siddharth Raj Agarwal, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Manish, Anmol Chandan,
Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, R.K. Chourasia, A.K. Sharma, Gagan
Gupta, Kunal Tandon, Shashank Shekher, Ms. Niti Jain, Mayank
Kshirsagar, Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Vinay Mohan Sharma, Sameer
Yadav, Ms. Aarti Anupriya, Kartikey, Raghav Anthwal, Baljeet, Amir
Yadav, Vineet Yadav, Vinayak Sharma, Jasbir Singh Malik, Ms. Usha
Nandini V., Anshuman Srivastava, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Ms.
Parul Shukla, Yojit Mehra, Ms. Kamakshi Sehgal, Karan Verma, Abhinav
Garg, Niraj Jain, E. C. Agrawala, Shree Prakash Sinha, Rakesh Mishra,
N. Kumar, Ms. M. Sinha, Shekhar Kumar, Mohd. Zahid Hussain, Camran
Iqbal, Comred Iqbal, Ms. Sahista Aslam, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Praveen
Bahadur, Ms. Ruby Ahuja, Ashutosh P. Shukla, Ms. K. Sachdeva, Akshay
Agarwal, Ms. Garima Singh, M/S. Karanjawala & Co., Gopal Jha, Ms.
Sujeeta Srivastava, Rakesh Kumar Yadav, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,
Anil Mittal, Vibhuti Sushant Gupta, Ms. Anjali Dubey, Raj Singh, Suryavir,
Sushant, Nitin Mishra, Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Ms. Sneha Botwe, Ms.
Sneha Kohli, Anshay Dhatwalia, Vishnu Mohan Nair, Ms. Kumud
Nijhawan, Ashwani Kumar, Yash Pal Dhingra, Ms. Arti Singh,
Aakashdeep Singh, Ms. Pooja Singh, Basant Pal Singh, Nishit Agrawal,
Harsh Mishra, Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey,
Ashutosh Kaushik, Shubham Hasija, Manish Vashist, Karunakar Mahalik,
Manoranjan Mishra, Gouranga Biswal, Sarbendra Kumar, Dr. Brij
Bhushan K. Jauhari, O.P. Singh, Harsh Mahan, Aman Garg, Ms. Purnima
Jauhari, Shree Pal Singh, Aakarsh Kamra, Ms. Gauri Goburdhun, Ish
Karan Singh Chhabra, Shiv Singh Yadav, Ms. Shefali Mitra, Ms. Puja
Sethi, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Tarun Gupta, Abhishek Sharma, Dharmendra
Kumar Sinha, Tarun Johri, Ankur Gupta, Roopansh Purohit, Rohit Yadav,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1089
Harsh Panwar, Neeraj Shekhar, Nasir Ahmed, Zakir Hussain, Syed, M.M.
Hussain, Ms. Naseema Khatoon, Ms. Prabha Mishra, Imran Khan, Ms.
Garima Prasad, Syed Hasan, V. Jayaraman Ispahani, P. Srinivasan, C.
Solomon, S. Navgarajan, Sharangouda Patil, Amankant Mishra, Ms.
Supreeta Sharangouda, L.B. Rai, Kartik Rai, Anish Jain, Nikhil Singhvi,
Abhishek Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Overlapping issues are involved in this bunch of cases. The
point of polemics, which is common in all these cases, pertain to the
meaning and interpretation of the word "initiated" employed in Section
24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity "the
2013 Act") with reference to land acquisition proceedings under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity "the L.A. Act"). Going by the
appellants in the appeals arising from SLP(C)Nos.16631-16632 of 2018,
including the State of Haryana, the Haryana State Industrial and
Infrastructure Development Corporation and the appellants or
respondents in certain other appeals sailing along with them (hereinafter
referred to as Party 'A'), for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013
Act, issuance and publication of a Notification under Section 4(1) of the
L.A. Act, 1894 alone would amount to initiation of acquisition proceedings
thereunder. Per contra, the contesting parties, viz., the respondents therein
and appellants in other appeals who hold the contra view, (hereinafter
referred to as Party 'B') would contend that it is the declaration that the
land is required for a public purpose under Section 6(1) of the L.A. Act
that would mark the point of initiation of acquisition proceedings
thereunder. To buttress the respective contentions, the parties rely on
various decisions of this Court as also of different High Courts. We may
hasten to add that the decisions of various High Courts cited before us
would also reflect the cleavage in opinion among the High Courts on this
issue.
Legal background
3. The legal background from which the stated question stems
may be encapsulated thus:
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVEL.
CORP. LTD. v. MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1090
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
The L.A. Act was a general law relating to acquisition of land for
public purposes and also for companies, and for determination of amount
of compensation to be made to the owner/holder of the property
concerned upon acquisition. Inadequacy of the provisions in the L.A.
Act in addressing various issues such as rehabilitation and resettlement
of affected parties of such acquisition led to the enactment of the 2013
Act and the consequent repeal of the L.A. Act. However, Section 114
of the 2013 Act carries provisions not only for repeal but also for saving
the L.A. Act to certain extent in given circumstances, from the prejudicial
effect of repeal under sub-section (1) thereof, in the manner provided
specifically in the 2013 Act. Section 114 of the 2013 Act reads thus:
"Repeal and saving.-
(1) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) is hereby repealed.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act the repeal under subsection (1) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general
application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of
1897) with regard to the effect of repeals."
When an enactment is repealed, normally some of its provisions
are saved by a repealing provision. The extent and scope of such
provisions under the repealed Act would depend upon the 'Repeal and
Saving' provision under the repealing Act.
4. Thus, as per sub-section (1) of Section 114 of the 2013 Act, the
L.A. Act was repealed and at the same time, sub-Section (2) thereof
carries a saving clause. As per sub-Section (2) thereof, the repeal under
sub-Section (1) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general
application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, with respect
to the effect of repeals. Hence, to know the actual impact of the saving
clause it is only proper and profitable to refer to Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act before entering into the task of interpretation of the
provisions under the L.A. Act which remains saved for the purpose of
Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act and the scope of further operation of such
provisions.
5. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Act 10 of 1897)
deals with the effect of repeals. It reads thus :-
"S.6 Effect of repeal.- Where this Act, or any [Central Act] or
Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1091
any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless
a different intention appears, the repeal shall not-
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which
the repeal takes effect; or
(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed
or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired,
accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or
(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in
respect of any offence committed against any enactment so
repealed; or
(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in
respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty,
forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation,
legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or
enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be
imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed."
(emphasis added)
6. Section 24 of the New 2013 Act is also to be extracted for a
proper consideration of the common question(s) involved in the above
appeals. It provides thus :-
"24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall
be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of
land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894,-
(a)
where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition
Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating
to the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b)
where an award under said section 11 has been made, then
such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the
said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been
repealed.
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVEL.
CORP. LTD. v. MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL [C. T. RAVIKUMAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1092
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case
of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11
has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of
this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken
or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall
be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it
so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition
afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation
in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in
the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified
in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land
Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance
with the provisions of this Act."
7. At this juncture it is only appropriate to refer to the decision of
this Court in Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corpn.
Vs. Mahesh & Ors. reported in (2022) 2 SCC 772. It was held therein
that in terms of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, Section 114 of 2013
Act as well as Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not apply to
the extent hindered by Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act for the following
reasons:
(i) Section 114 of the 2013 Act while accepting the applicability
of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act made its application subject
to 'save as otherwise provided' in the 2013 Act;
(ii) Section 6 of the General Clauses Act itself provided that
the general savings would not apply when legislative intent is
contrary.
In this context it is also apposite to refer to the decision of this
Court in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalatha S. Guram
reported in (1986) 4 SCC 447 explaining the effect of a non-obstante
clause. This Court held:
"A Clause beginning with the expression "notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or in some particular provision in the act or in
some particular act or in any law for the time being in force, or
any contract" is often than not appended to a Section in the
beginning with a view to give the enacting part of this Section in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1093
case of a conflict an overriding effect over the provision of the
Act or the contract mentioned in the non-obstante clause. It is
equivalent to saying that inspite of the provision of the Act or any
other Act mentioned in the non-obstante clause or any contract or
document mentioned in the enactment following it will have its
full operation or that the provisions embraced in the non-obstante
clause would not be an impediment for operation of the
enactment".
(emphasis supplied)
8. In the light of the aforesaid decisions what needs to be looked
into is the extent and scope of the applicability of the provisions under
the L.A. Act, despite its repeal, by virtue of section 24 of the 2013 Act.
A perusal of Section 24 would reveal that passing of an Award under
Section 11 of the L.A. Act is the key factor in deciding the manner and
nature of continuance of the land acquisition proceedings. A scanning of
Section 24(1)(a) would reveal that if land acquisition proceeding was
initiated under the L.A. Act, but no award was passed under Section 11
thereof, then, all provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the "determination
of compensation" would apply. At the same time, if upon initiation of
acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act, an award under Section 11
of the L.A. Act was passed, then, such proceedings shall continue under
the provisions of the L.A. Act itself, as if the same had not been repealed.
9. Party 'B' who canvass the position against the view that
issuance and publication of notice under Section 4(1) is the point of
initiation, would contend that land acquisition proceedings could not be
held as initiated, for the purpose of Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act,
unless Section 6 declaration under the L.A. Act was issued in respect of
the land proposed to be acquired before 01.01.2014, the date on which
the 2013 Act came into force. At the same time, the contention of Party
'A' is that land acquisition proceedings should be taken as initiated under
the L.A. Act when Section 4(1) Notification under the L.A. Act was
issued and published in the official gazette of the appropriate Government.
Obviously, when land acquisition proceedings have been initiated and an
award was also passed under section 11 of the L.A. Act, such
proceedings, thereafter, could be continued only under the provisions of
the L.A. Act, as if had not been repealed. It is in the aforesaid rival
contentions and the impact of 'initiation' of land acquisition proceedings
in the context and purpose of Section 24 of the 2013 Act that the
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVEL.
CORP. LTD. v. MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL [C. T. RAVIKUMAR, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1094
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 17 S.C.R.
construction of the word "initiated" used under Section 24(1) became
necessary.
10. We have already noted the stand of the parties on the question
of point of initiation of acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act, for
the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act. To buttress the contention,
Party 'A' mainly reliance is placed on the decisions in Indrapuri Griha
Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan [(1975) 4 SCC
296)]; and V.K.M. Kattha Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana
[(2013) 9 SCC 338]. In the light of those decisions, they would contend
that without issuance of Section 4(1) Notification acquisition under the
L.A. Act could not be effected. It is further contended that without such
a notification, it would not be lawful for any officer, either generally or
specially authorised by the appropriate Government on their behalf, and
also for his/her servants and workmen to enter upon and survey and
take levels of any land in the locality concerned or lawfully do such
further actions specified and permissible under Section 4(2) of the L.A.
Act. The sum and substance of their manifold contentions is that issuance
of Section 4(1) Notification for acquisition under the L.A. Act is not a
mere formality and it is the point of initiation of acquisition proceedings
under the L.A. Act.
11. On the other hand, Party 'B' would contend that issuance and
publication of Section 4(1) Notification is a mere formality only to enable
the authorised officer and workmen for carrying out preliminary steps
for acquisition of the land proposed to be acquired. Nonetheless, they
would admit that without the issuance of a notification thereunder
acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act would not be possible. Their
contention is that Section 4(1) notification carries only a formal decision
as to whether any particular land is needed or likely to be needed for a
public purpose and it is only under Section 6 of the L.A. Act that ultimately
a firm declaration would be made as to the requirement of the land
mentioned in the preliminary notification for public purpose. Hence,
according to Party 'B', for all purposes, it alone could be and should be
treated as the point of initiation of acquisition proceedings under the
L.A. Act. To drive home their contention, reliance is mainly placed on
the decisions in Babu Barkya Thakur vs. State of Bombay & Ors.
(AIR 1960 SC 1203) and M/s. Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd.
Vs. Gustavo Ranato Da Cruz Pinto & Ors. [(1985) 2 SCC 152.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1095
12. The succinct narration of the rival contentions itself would
reveal the diverse contentions of the parties made relying on different
decisions to support their respective stand on the question relating to
what would amount to initiation of acquisition proceedings under the
L.A. Act, for the purpose of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act.
13. In Indrapuri Griha Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. case
(supra)a Constitution Bench held thus: -
"Land acquisition proceedings commence with the notification
under Section 4 of the Act."
It is true that the Constitution Bench was not considering the
question whether it is issuance and publication of a notification under
Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act or the declaration that the land is required
for public purpose under Section 6 of the L.A. Act, that tantamounts to
initiation or commencement of the land acquisition proceedings under
L.A. Act. In fact, the Constitution Bench was considering the challenge
against the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Land
Acquisition Act, 1953. But then, a two-Judge Bench of this Court in
Civil Appeal No.6392 of 2003 titled as 'Laxman Lal (Dead) Through
LRs. & Anr. V. State of Rajasthan' held that Section 4 of Rajasthan
Land Acquisition Act is identical to Section 4 of the L.A. Act and Section
6 of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act is similar to Section 6 of the L.A.
Act. Therefore, the declaration of the position of Section 4 of the L.A.
Act by the Constitution of Bench that land acquisition proceedings
commence with the notification under Section 4 of the Act cannot be
ignored neither on the ground that it was held so while considering the
said provisions in the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act nor on the ground
that it was not made upon consideration of the question as to whether it
is Section 4 or Section 6, of the L.A. Act that marks the point of initiation
of land acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act.
14.