# INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-03-06
- **Case number:** Writ Appeal Nos. 514, 799 and 772 of 2006
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M. R. Shah, S. Ravindra Bhat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/indore-development-authority-v-manoharlal-ors-etc-34091
- **Pages:** 328

## Headnote

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Legislative
history of the Act of 2013 - Purpose of its enactment - Salient
features - Departure from old Land Acquisition Act in 2013 Act
relating to Social Impact Assessment, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Scheme - Discussed .
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Twin requirement for the lapse - Firstly, physical possession has
not been taken and secondly compensation has not been paid -
Whether the conditions are cumulative i.e. both are to be fulfilled
for lapsing of acquisition proceedings or the conditions are in
alternative ("either/or") - Held: s.24(2) of the Act of 2013 deals
with a situation only where the award has been made five years or
more before the commencement of the Act, but physical possession
of the land has not been taken, nor compensation has been paid -
As regards the collation of the words used in s.24(2), two negative
conditions have been prescribed - General rule of statutory
interpretation of positive and negative conditions are that positive
conditions separated by 'or' are read in the alternative but negative
conditions connected by 'or' are construed as cumulative and 'or'
is read as 'nor' or 'and' i.e. the expression 'or' has to be read as
conjunctive and conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled -
Thus, the word 'or' used in s.24(2) between possession and
compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and' - This would mean
that the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under s.24(2)
takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or
more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013, the possession of
land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid - Thus,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
even if one condition is satisfied, there is no lapse - Interpretation
of statutes.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Interpreting "or" under s.24(2) of the Act of 2013 disjunctively -
Effect of - Held: It would result in an anomalous situation, because,
once compensation has been paid to the landowner, there is no
provision for its refund - In case physical possession is with the
landowner; and compensation has been paid, there is no provision
in the Act for disgorging out the benefit of compensation - In the
absence of any provision for refund in the Act of 2013, the State
cannot recover compensation paid - The landowner would be
unjustly enriched - This could never have been the legislative intent
of enacting s.24(2) of the Act of 2013 - The principle of restitution,
unless provided in the Act, cannot be resorted to by the authorities
on their own - Absence of provision for refund in the Act of 2013
reinforces conclusion that the word "or" has to be read as
conjunctively and has to be read as "and" - Doctrine of unjust
enrichment and principle of restitution.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Purpose of - Held: To punish acquiring authority for its lethargy in
not taking physical possession nor paying compensation after
making award five years or more before commencement of Act of
2013 in pending proceedings providing they would lapse.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24 - Vested
right under - Held: s.24 of the Act of 2013 does not intend to take
away vested rights - This is because there is no specific provision
taking away or divesting title to the land, which had originally vested
with the State, or divesting the title or interest of beneficiaries or
third-party transferees of such land which they had lawfully
acquired, through sales or transfers.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitatio

## Text

_Characters 0–39,915 of 755,919. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39915 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
 [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1
1
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
v.
MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC.
(S.L.P. (C) Nos. 9036-9038 of 2016)
MARCH 06, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN,
M. R. SHAH AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Legislative
history of the Act of 2013 - Purpose of its enactment - Salient
features - Departure from old Land Acquisition Act in 2013 Act
relating to Social Impact Assessment, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Scheme - Discussed .
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Twin requirement for the lapse - Firstly, physical possession has
not been taken and secondly compensation has not been paid -
Whether the conditions are cumulative i.e. both are to be fulfilled
for lapsing of acquisition proceedings or the conditions are in
alternative ("either/or") - Held: s.24(2) of the Act of 2013 deals
with a situation only where the award has been made five years or
more before the commencement of the Act, but physical possession
of the land has not been taken, nor compensation has been paid -
As regards the collation of the words used in s.24(2), two negative
conditions have been prescribed - General rule of statutory
interpretation of positive and negative conditions are that positive
conditions separated by 'or' are read in the alternative but negative
conditions connected by 'or' are construed as cumulative and 'or'
is read as 'nor' or 'and' i.e. the expression 'or' has to be read as
conjunctive and conditions of both the clauses must be fulfilled -
Thus, the word 'or' used in s.24(2) between possession and
compensation has to be read as 'nor' or as 'and' - This would mean
that the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under s.24(2)
takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or
more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013, the possession of
land has not been taken nor compensation has been paid - Thus,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
even if one condition is satisfied, there is no lapse - Interpretation
of statutes.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Interpreting "or" under s.24(2) of the Act of 2013 disjunctively -
Effect of - Held: It would result in an anomalous situation, because,
once compensation has been paid to the landowner, there is no
provision for its refund - In case physical possession is with the
landowner; and compensation has been paid, there is no provision
in the Act for disgorging out the benefit of compensation - In the
absence of any provision for refund in the Act of 2013, the State
cannot recover compensation paid - The landowner would be
unjustly enriched - This could never have been the legislative intent
of enacting s.24(2) of the Act of 2013 - The principle of restitution,
unless provided in the Act, cannot be resorted to by the authorities
on their own - Absence of provision for refund in the Act of 2013
reinforces conclusion that the word "or" has to be read as
conjunctively and has to be read as "and" - Doctrine of unjust
enrichment and principle of restitution.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Purpose of - Held: To punish acquiring authority for its lethargy in
not taking physical possession nor paying compensation after
making award five years or more before commencement of Act of
2013 in pending proceedings providing they would lapse.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24 - Vested
right under - Held: s.24 of the Act of 2013 does not intend to take
away vested rights - This is because there is no specific provision
taking away or divesting title to the land, which had originally vested
with the State, or divesting the title or interest of beneficiaries or
third-party transferees of such land which they had lawfully
acquired, through sales or transfers.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: proviso to
s.24(2) - Whether proviso is part of s.24(2) or s.24(1)(b) - Held:
The proviso is part of the scheme of s.24(2) - The entire provision
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
of s.24(2), including the proviso, operates when there is inaction
for a period of five years or more, as contemplated therein.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Applicability to pending proceedings - Held: s.24(2) shall apply to
the proceeding which is pending as on the date on which the Act of
2013, has been brought into force and it does not apply to the
concluded proceedings - s.24(2) is not a tool to revive concluded
proceedings and to question the validity of acquisition proceedings
due to which possession were taken decades ago, or to question
the manner of deposit of amount in the treasury - The Act of 2013
never intended revival of such claims - s.24(2) only contemplates
lethargy/inaction of the authorities to act for five years or more.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Whether gives rise to fresh cause of action - Held: s.24(2) of the
Act of 2013 does not give rise to new cause of action to question
the legality of concluded proceedings of land acquisition - s.24
does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not reopen
concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question the legality
of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings or mode of
deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of court to invalidate
acquisition.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
Exclusion of period of interim order(s) - Held: Any court's interim
order cannot be said to be inaction of the authorities or agencies;
thus, time period is not to be included for counting the 5 years
period as envisaged in s.24(2).
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) and
its proviso - The expression 'paid' in the main part of s.24(2) does
not include a deposit of compensation in court - The consequence
of non-deposit is provided in proviso to s.24(2) in case it has not
been deposited with respect to majority of land holdings then all
beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land
acquisition under s.4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MANOHARLAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013
- In case the obligation under s.31 of the Act of 1894 has not been
fulfilled, interest under s.34 of the said Act can be granted - Nondeposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of
land acquisition proceedings - In case of non- deposit with respect
to the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation
under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the "landowners" as on the
date of notification for land acquisition under s.4 of the Act of
1894.
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: s.24(2) -
When compensation, tendered, as provided in s.31(1) of the Act of
1894, but not paid/deposited in court - Whether acquisition lapse
- Held: In case a person has been tendered the compensation as
provided under s.31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to
claim that acquisition has lapsed under s.24(2) due to non-payment
or non-deposit of compensation in court - The obligation to pay is
complete by tendering the amount under s.31(1) - Land owners
who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference
for higher compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under s.24(2) of the Act of 2013 - Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.31(1).
Land Acquisition: Mode of taking possession - When
possession of large area of land is to be taken, then it is permissible
to take possession by drawing Panchnama - Possession.
Possession: Concept of possession - Held: Possession
comprises the right to possess and to exclude others, essential is
animus possidendi - Possession depends upon the character of the
thing which is possessed - If the land is not capable of any use,
mere non-user of it does not lead to the inference that the owner is
not in possession - The established principle is that the possession
follows title - Possession comprises of the control over the property
- The element of possession is the physical control or the power
over the object and intention or will to exercise the power - Corpus
and animus are both necessary and have to co-exist.
Delay/laches: In matters of land acquisition, delay is fatal in
questioning the land acquisition proceedings - In case possession
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
5
has not been taken in accordance with law and vesting is not in
accordance with s.16, proceedings before courts are to be initiated
within reasonable time, not after the lapse of several decades -
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.16.
Interpretation of Statutes: Addition or substraction of word(s)
in a statute - Power of Courts - Held: While interpreting the
statutory provisions, addition or subtraction in the legislation is
not permissible - It is not open to the court to either add or subtract
a word - There cannot be any departure from the words of law, as
observed in legal maxim "A Verbis Legis Non Est Recedendum" -
Legal maxim.
Interpretation of Statutes: When two different expressions are
used in the same provision of a statute, there is a presumption that
they are not used in the same sense.
Interpretation of statutes: Proviso to a provision - The
function of the proviso is to explain or widen the scope - The proviso
cannot travel beyond the provision to which it is attached.
Interpretation of Statutes: Colon (punctuation mark) -
Significance of its use - The use of the colon is to introduce a subclause that follows logically from the text before it - Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s.24(2).
Judicial Notice: Judicial notice is taken of the fact that in no
other Government security, rate of interest is higher on the amount
being invested under ss.32 and 33 of the Act of 1894 - Higher rate
of interest is available under s.34 to the advantage of landowners
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Repeal: Applicability of the General Clauses Act - Held: When
repeal is followed by a fresh enactment on the same subject, the
provisions of the General Clauses Act would undoubtedly require
an examination of the language of the new enactment if it expresses
an intent different from the earlier repealed Act - The enquiry would
necessitate the examination if the old rights and liabilities are kept
alive or whether the new Act manifests an intention to do away with
or destroy them - If the new Act manifests different intentions, the
application of the General Clauses Act will stand excluded - General
Clauses Act.
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MANOHARLAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
Words and phrases: Word 'paid', tender', 'vesting' - Meaning
of, discussed.
Words and phrases: Word 'paid' and 'deposited' - Distinction
between - Dictionary meaning and meaning in the context of s.24(2)
of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Words and phrases: Concept of vesting - Discussed.
Answering the reference, the Court
HELD: 1. The Act of 2013 repeals and replaces the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, a general law for acquisition of land of public
purposes, which had been in force for almost 120 years, with a
view to address certain inadequacies and/ or shortcomings in the
said Act. The Act of 2013 is prospective and saves proceedings
already initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before its
repeal, subject to provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013,
which begins with a non-obstante clause and overrides all other
provisions of the Act of 2013. [Paras 6, 7][58 B-D]
2. Scope of Section 24
2.1 Section 24 begins with a non-obstante clause, overriding
all other provisions of the Act of 2013 including Section 114 of
the Act of 2013, dealing with repeal and saving. In terms of Section
114 of the Act of 2013, the general application of Section 6 of the
General Clauses Act, 1897, except otherwise provided in the
Act, has been saved. Section 6(a) of the General Clauses Act,
1897 provides that unless a different intention appears, the repeal
shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time when
the repeal has been made. The effect of the previous operation
of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered
thereunder is also saved by the provisions contained in Section
6(b). As per Section 6(c), the repeal shall not affect any right,
privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, or incurred.
[Para 94][115 E-G]
2.2 Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 read with the nonobstante clause provides that in case of proceedings initiated
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
7
under the Act of 1894 the award had not been made under Section
11, then the provisions of the Act of 2013, relating to the
determination of compensation would apply. However; the
proceedings held earlier do not lapse. In terms of Section 24(1)(b),
where award under Section 11 is made, then such proceedings
shall continue under the provisions of the Act of 1894. It
contemplates that such pending proceedings, as on the date on
which the Act of 2013 came into force shall continue, and taken
to their logical end. However, the exception to Section 24(1) (b)
is provided in Section 24(2) in case of pending proceedings; in
case where the award has been passed five years or more prior
to the commencement of the Act of 2013, the physical possession
of the land has not been taken, or the compensation has not been
paid, the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed, and such
proceedings cannot continue as per the provisions of Section
24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013. [Para 95][115 G-H][116 A-C]
Principles of Statutory Interpretation (14th Edition) by Justice
G.P. Singh - referred to
2.3 As regards the collation of the words used in Section
24(2), two negative conditions have been prescribed. Thus, even
if one condition is satisfied, there is no lapse, and this logically
flows from the Act of 1894 read with the provisions of Section 24
of the Act of 2013. Any other interpretation would entail illogical
results. Thus, for lapse of acquisition proceedings initiated under
the old law, under Section 24(2), if both steps have not been taken,
i.e., neither physical possession is taken, nor compensation is
paid, the land acquisition proceedings lapse. [Paras 99, 101][119
G-H][122 B-C]
Patel Chunibhai Dajibha, etc. v. Narayanrao
Khanderao Jambekar and Anr. AIR 1965 SC 1457 :
[1965] SCR 328; Punjab Produce & Trading Co. v.
Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, [1971] SCR
977 - relied on
Brown & Co. v. Harrison (1927) All ER Rep 195;
Federal Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Department of
Trade and Industry 1974 (1) WLR 505 - referred to
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MANOHARLAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
2.4 Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is a penal provision - to
punish the acquiring authority for its lethargy in not taking physical
possession nor paying the compensation after making the award
five years or more before the commencement of the Act of 2013
in pending proceedings, providing that they would lapse. The
expression "where an award has been made, then the proceedings
shall continue" used in Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 1894 means
that proceedings were pending in praesenti as on the date of
enforcement of the Act of 2013 are not concluded proceedings,
and in that context, an exception has been carved out in section
24(2). [Para 112][131 A-C]
M/s. Ranchhoddas Atmaram and Anr. v. The Union of
India and Ors. AIR 1961 SC 935 : [1961] SCR 718;
Prof. Yashpal & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
(2005) 5 SCC 420 : [2005] 2 SCR 23; Joint Director
of Mines Safety v. Tandur and Nayandgi Stone Quarries
(P) Ltd (1987) 3 SCC 308 : [1987] 2 SCR 911; Samee
Khan v Bindu Khan (1998) 7 SCC 59 : [1998] 1 Suppl.
SCR 244; State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala
[1957] 1 SCR 874; Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj
etc. v State of Rajasthan & Ors AIR 1963 SC 1638 :
[1964] SCR 561 - relied on
Pooran Singh v. State of M.P [1965] 2 SCR 853; Sri
Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1975)
2 SCC 671 : [1976] 1 SCR 505; Municipal Corporation
of Delhi v. Tek Chand Bhatia (1980) 1 SCC 158 : [1980]
1 SCR 910; State of Punjab v. Ex-Constable Ram Singh
(1992) 4 SCC 54 : [1992] 3 SCR 634 - referred to
Marsey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins and
Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd. LR (AC) Vol.XIII 1888 595;
Re Hayden Pask v. Perry (1931) 2 Ch.333;
Metropolitan Board of Works v. Street Bros (1881) VIII
QBD 445 - referred to
2.5 When considering the scheme of the Act of 1894, once
the award was made under Section 11, the Collector may,
undertake possession of the land which shall thereupon vest
absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Section
16 of the Act of 1894 enables the Collector to take possession of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
9
acquired land, when an award is made under Section 11. Clearly,
there can be lapse of proceedings under the Act of 1894 only
when possession is not taken. The provisions in Section 11A of
the Act of 1894 states that the Collector shall make an award
within a period of two years from the date of the publication of
the declaration under Section 6 and if no award is made within
two years, the entire proceedings for acquisition of the land shall
lapse. The period of two year excludes any period during which
interim order granted by the Court was in operation. Once an
award is made and possession is taken, by virtue of Section 16,
land vests absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances.
Vesting of land is automatic on the happening of the two exigencies
of passing award and taking possession, as provided in Section
16. [Paras 114, 115][131 F-H][132 C-E]
2.6 The scheme of the Act of 1894 is clear that when the
award is passed under Section 11, thereafter possession is taken
as provided under Section 16, land vests in the State Government.
Under Section 12(2), a notice of the award has to be issued by
the Collector. Taking possession is not dependent upon payment.
Payment has to be tendered under Section 31 unless the Collector
is "prevented from making payment," as provided under section
31(2). In case of failure under Section 31(1) or 31(3), also Collector
is not precluded from making payment, but it carries interest
under Section 34 @ 9% for the first year from the date it ought to
have been paid or deposited and thereafter @ 15%. Thus, once
land has been vested in the State under Section 16, in case of
failure to pay the compensation under Section 31(1) to deposit
under Section 31(2), compensation has to be paid along with
interest, and due to non-compliance of Section 31, there is no
lapse of acquisition. The same spirit has been carried forward in
the Act of 2013 by providing in Section 24(2). Once possession
has been taken though the payment has not been made, the
compensation has to be paid along with interest as envisaged
under section 34, and in a case, payment has been made,
possession has not been taken, there is no lapse under Section
24(2). In a case where possession has been taken under the Act
of 1894 as provided by Section 16 or 17(1) the land vests
absolutely in the State, free from all encumbrances, if
compensation is not paid, there is no divesting there will be no
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MANOHARLAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
lapse as compensation carries interest @ 9% or @ 15% as
envisaged under Section 34 of the Act of 1894. Proviso to Section
24(2) makes some wholesome provision in case the amount has
not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings, in
such an event, not only those persons but all the beneficiaries,
though for minority of holding compensation has been paid, shall
be entitled to higher compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the Act of 2013. The expression used is "all
beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under
Section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act", i.e., Act of 1894,
means that the persons who are to be paid higher compensation
are those who have been recorded as beneficiaries as on the
date of notification under Section 4. The proviso gives effect to,
and furthers the principle that under the Act of 1894, the purchases
made after issuance of notification under Section 4 are void. As
such, the benefit of higher compensation under the proviso to
Section 24(2) is intended to be given to the beneficiaries
mentioned in the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
[Para 118][133 D-H][134 A-D]
2.7 The benefits under the Act of 2013 envisage that where
the award had not been made, or award has been made, but
possession has not been taken (because once possession is taken,
land is vests in the State) there can be lapse of acquisition. No
doubt that payment is also to be made: that issue is taken care of
by the provision of payment of interest under Section 34: also, in
case of non-deposit- in respect of majority of holdings in a given
award, higher compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid
to all beneficiaries as on the date of notification under Section 4
issued under the Act of 1894. There is nothing in the Statement
of Objects and Reasons making specific reference to non-payment
of compensation where an award has been made, and possession
has been taken. While interpreting the provisions of an Act, the
court to consider the objects and reasons of the legislature, which
the legislature had in mind also emphasised that once vesting is
complete, there is no divesting. [Para 120][134 G-H][135 A-C]
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of
Dimakuchi Tea Estate [1958] SCR 1156; Mukesh K.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
11
Tripathi v. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC & Ors.
(2004) 8 SCC 387 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 127 - relied
on
2.8 Interpreting "or" under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013
disjunctively, would result in an anomalous situation - because,
once compensation has been paid to the landowner, there is no
provision for its refund. In case physical possession is with the
landowner; and compensation has been paid, there is no provision
in the Act for disgorging out the benefit of compensation. In the
absence of any provision for refund in the Act of 2013, the State
cannot recover compensation paid. The landowner would be
unjustly enriched. This could never have been the legislative
intent of enacting Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The principle
of restitution, unless provided in the Act, cannot be resorted to
by the authorities on their own. The absence of provision for
refund in the Act of 2013 reinforces conclusion that the word
"or" has to be read as conjunctively and has to be read as "and."
[Para 132][150-E][151 A-B]
C. Padma & Ors. v. Dy. Secretary & Ors (1997) 2 SCC
627 : [1996] 9 Suppl. SCR 158; Northern Indian Glass
Industries v. Jaswant Singh & Ors (2003) 1 SCC 335 :
[2002] 3 Suppl. SCR 534; Milkfood Ltd. v. GMC Ice
Cream (P) Ltd 2004 (7) SCC 288 : [2004] 3 SCR 854 -
referred to
3. In re: Vesting and divesting
Once the land vests in the State, it cannot be divested, even
if there is some irregularity in the acquisition proceedings. There
is nothing in the Act of 1894 to show that non-compliance thereof
will be fatal or will lead to any penalty. Once vesting takes place,
and is with possession, after which a person who remains in
possession is only a trespasser, not in rightful possession and
vesting contemplates absolute title, possession in the State.
[Paras 141, 147][160-H][161-A][163 F-G]
State of Punjab v. Sadhu Ram 1996 (7) JT 118; Star
Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors (1996) 11
SCC 698 : [1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 6; Market Committee
v. Krishan Murari (1996) 1 SCC 311 : [1995] 4 Suppl.
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MANOHARLAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
SCR 787; Puttu Lal (dead) by L.Rs. v. State of U.P. &
Anr (1996) 3 SCC 99 : [1996] 2 SCR 638; The Fruit &
Vegetable Merchants Union v. The Delhi Improvement
Trust [1957] SCR 01; 147 VKNM Vocational Higher
Secondary School v. State of Kerala (2016) 4 SCC 216 :
[2016] 1 SCR 343; May George v. Special Tahsildar &
Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 98 : [2010] 7 SCR 204;
P. Chinnanna & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors. (1994) 5
SCC 486 : [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 426; Satendra Prasad
Jain & Ors. v. State of U.P & Ors (1993) 4 SCC 369 :
[1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 336; Tika Ram and Ors. v. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 689 : [2009]
14 SCR 905; Pratap & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan &
Ors (1996) 3 SCC 1 : [1996] 2 SCR 1088; Awadh Bihari
Yadav & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors (1995) 6 SCC 31
: [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 197 - relied on
Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Modi Sugar Mills
[1961] 2 SCR 189; Dattatraya Moreshwar v. The State
of Bombay and Ors., AIR 1952 SC 181 : [1952] SCR
612; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR
1961 SC 751 : [1961] SCR 679; Raza Buland Sugar
Co. Ltd., Rampur v. Municipal Board, Rampur, AIR 1965
SC 895 : [1965] SCR 970; State of Mysore v. V.K.
Kangan, AIR 1975 SC 2190 : [1976] 1 SCR 369;
Sharif -Ud- Din v. Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 SC 303 :
[1980] 1 SCR 1177; Balwant Singh and Ors. v. Anand
Kumar Sharma and Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 433 : [2003] 1
SCR 653; Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar
and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 2036 : [2004] 3 SCR 834;
M/s. Rubber House v. Excellsior Needle Industries Pvt.
Ltd., AIR 1989 SC 1160 : [1989] 1 SCR 986; B.S.
Khurana and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
and Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 679 : [2000] 3 Suppl.
SCR 357; State of Haryana and Anr. v. RaghubirDayal,
(1995) 1 SCC 133 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 448;
GullipilliSowria Raj v. Bandaru Pavani @ Gullipili
Pavani, (2009) 1 SCC 714 : [2008] 17 SCR 35 -
referred to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
Braithwaite & Co. v. E.S.I.C [1968] 1 SCR 771 -
referred to
4. In re: Vested rights under Section 24 of the Act of 2013
Section 24 of the Act of 2013 does not intend to take away
vested rights. This is because there is no specific provision taking
away or divesting title to the land, which had originally vested
with the State, or divesting the title or interest of beneficiaries or
third-party transferees of such land which they had lawfully
acquired, through sales or transfers. When repeal is followed by
a fresh enactment on the same subject, the provisions of the
General Clauses Act would undoubtedly require an examination
of the language of the new enactment if it expresses an intent
different from the earlier repealed Act. The enquiry would
necessitate the examination if the old rights and liabilities are
kept alive or whether the new Act manifests an intention to do
away with or destroy them. If the new Act manifests different
intentions, the application of the General Clauses Act will stand
excluded. [Paras 148, 149][164 F-G][166 A-C]
State of Haryana v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd
(2017) 9 SCC 463 : [2017] 9 SCR 482 - relied on
Zile Singh v. State of Haryana (2004) 8 SCC 01 : [2004]
3 Suppl. SCR 400; CIT v. Sarkar Builders (2015) 7
SCC 579 : [2015] 7 SCR 56; Jawaharmal v. State of
Rajasthan [1966] 1 SCR 890; Rai Ramkrishna v. State
of Bihar [1964] 1 SCR 897; K.S. Paripoornan v. State
of Kerala & Ors (1994) 5 SCC 593 : [1994] 3 Suppl.
SCR 405 - relied on
Yamashita-Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd.v L'office
Chefifien Des Phosphates & Anr [1994] 1 A.C. 486;
Lauri v. Renad (1892) 3 Ch. 402; Gloucester Union v.
Woolwich Union (1917) 2 K.B. 374; The King v. The
General Commissioners of Income Tax for Southampton
(1916) 2 K.B. 249 - referred to
Bennion, Statutory Interpretation, 5th Edition (2012) -
referred to
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MANOHARLAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
5. In re: Legislative History of Act of 2013
The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill,
2011 (Bill No.77 of 2011) was introduced in the Parliament. Section
24(1), as introduced originally, contained a provision with respect
to award, which has not been made, but it was later on amended,
and now as provided in Section 24(1)(a), there is no lapse
and only higher compensation is available in case award has not
been passed. The earlier Section 24(2) contained only the
provision with respect to possession of the land that has not been
taken. Earlier, there was no time limit prescribed, and it was
proposed that the process for acquisition of land shall lapse.
Debates in the Lok Sabha on 29.8.2013, were referred to during
the hearings, to cite various reasons given in respect of the
question why effect should be given retrospectively in cases
where acquisition has not been completed. While replying to the
debate, the Minister concerned had stated that there would be
lapse only if in case possession has not been taken and
compensation has not been paid. The emphasis right from the
beginning was on possession. Thus, from the perusal of debate
too, it is apparent that the word "or" had been understood as
"and". [Paras 161, 162, 164, 165][178 D-E][179 B-D][180 BC][180 G-H]
Tinsukhia Electric Supply Company Ltd. v. State of Assam
& Ors., (1989) 3 SCC 709 : [1989] 2 SCR 544; C.I.T.
v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 3 SCC 57 : [2002]
5 Suppl. SCR 387; Balram Kamanat v. Union of India
(2003) 7 SCC 628 : [2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 24; New India
Assurance Co. v. Nulli Nivelle, (2008) 3 SCC 279 :
[2007] 13 SCR 598; H.S. Vankani v. State of Gujarat,
(2010) 4 SCC 301 : [2010] 3 SCR 485; State of Gujarat
& Anr. v. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) and
Ors., (2013) 3 SCC 1 : [2013] 1 SCR 1 - referred to
6. In Re: Objectives of the Act
The Act of 2013 has been enacted considering the
difficulties caused by the operation of the earlier laws and to
subserve the public interest. Thus, the Court should interpret it
in the context of the attendant circumstances. At the same time,
the court should not, while ostensibly adopting a purposive or
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
15
liberal interpretation, affect matters which have become final, or
stale. [Para 166][181 D-E]
Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [1962]
1 SCR 44;
A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar v. M.
Venkatachalam Potti [1955] SCR 1196; Arnit Das v.
State of Bihar (2000) 5 SCC 488; Popat Bahiru
Govardhane & Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
& Anr., (2013) 10 SCC 765 : [2013] 8 SCR 241 - relied
on
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.
& Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 111 : [2002] 4 Suppl. SCR 517 -
referred to
7. In Re: proviso to Section 24(2): Whether the proviso is
part of section 24(2) or Section 24(1).
7.1 When reading the word "or" as 'and' in the main part of
section 24(2), it is clear that the proviso has to stay as part of
section 24(2) where it has been placed by the legislature, and
only then it makes sense. If 'or' used in-between two negative
conditions of 'possession has not been taken' or 'compensation
has not been paid,' disjunctively, in that case, the proviso cannot
be operative and would become otiose and would make no sense
as part of Section 24(2). In case of amount not having been paid
the acquisition has to lapse, though possession (of the land) has
been taken would not be the proper interpretation of the main
part, when "or" is read conjunctively, section 24(2) provided for
lapse in a case where possession has not been taken, nor
compensation has been paid, in such a case proviso becomes
operative in given exigency of not depositing amount with respect
to majority of landholdings. [Para 171][184 D-F]
7.2 A reading of section 24(2) shows that in case possession
has been taken even if the compensation has not been paid, the
proceedings shall not lapse. In case payment has not been made
nor deposited with respect to the majority of the holdings in the
accounts of the beneficiaries, then all the beneficiaries specified
in the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall get the
enhanced compensation under the provisions of the Act of 2013.
Section 24(2) not only deals with failure to take physical
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MANOHARLAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
possession but also failure to make payment of compensation. If
both things have not been done, there is lapse of the acquisition
proceeding. Once an award has been passed and possession has
been taken, there is absolute vesting of the land, as such higher
compensation follows under the proviso, which is beneficial to
holders. In a case where both the negative conditions have not
been fulfilled, as mentioned in section 24(2), there is a lapse.
Thus, the proviso is a wholesome provision and is, in fact, a part
of section 24(2); it fits in the context of section 24(2) as deposit
is related with the payment of compensation and lapse is provided
due to non-payment along with not taking possession for five
years or more whereas for non-deposit higher compensation is
provided. [Para 172][184 F-H][185 A-D]
7.3 When considering the provisions of section 24(1)(b)
where an award has been passed under section 11 of the Act of
1894, such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of
the said Act as if it has not been repealed. The only exception
carved out is the period of 5 years or more and that too by
providing a non-obstante clause in Section 24(2) to anything
contained in section 24(1). The non-obstante clause qualifies the
proviso also to Section 24(2). It has to be read as part of Section
24(2) as it is an exception to Section 24(1)(b). Section 24(1)(b) is
a self-contained provision, and is also a part of the non-obstante
clause to the other provisions of the Act as provided in sub-section
(1). Parliament worked out an exception, by providing a nonobstante clause in section 24(2), to Section 24(1). Compensation
is to be paid under Section 24(1)(b) under the Act of 1894 and
not under the Act of 2013. As such Section 24 (2) is an exception
to section 24(1)(b) and the proviso is also an exception which fits
in with non-obstante clause of Section 24(2) only. Any other
interpretation will be derogatory to the provisions contained in
Section 24(1)(b) which provides that the pending proceedings
shall continue under the Act of 1894 as if it had not been repealed,
that would include the part relating to compensation too. Even if
there is no lapse of proceedings under section 24(1)(a), only
higher compensation follows under Section 24(1)(a). [Para
173][185 D-H][186-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
17
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Tarun Pal Singh
& Ors. (2018) 14 SCC 161 : [2017] 14 SCR 202 171 -
relied on
Delhi Development Authority v. Virender Lal Bahri &
Ors. - referred to
7.4 Punctuation used in Section 24(2):
Parliament has used the full stop (.) after section 24(1) and
colon (:) after section 24(2). It cannot be gainsaid that punctuation
plays a vital role, particularly when an attempt is made to relocate
any part of the provision. The use of the colon is to introduce a
sub-clause that follows logically from the text before it. Though
as the interpretation of the provision of Section 24(2) and its
proviso needs no further deliberation regarding its placement,
the same is to be read as a proviso to Section 24(2) and not Section
24(1)
(b) Use of punctuation colon reinforces conclusion and
punctuation mark has been an accepted method of statutory
interpretation when such a problem arises. Though sometimes
punctuation can be ignored also but not generally. The full stop
after section 24(1)(b) expresses deliberate intent to end a
particular sentence and detach it from the next part. It is clear
that the colon (:) has a reference to the previous statement and
enlarges the same and extends the meaning of the sentence. The
colon indicates that the text is intrinsically linked to the previous
provision preceding it, i.e., Section 24(2) in this case and not
section 24(1). The colon indicates that what follows. The colon
proves, explains, defines describes or lists elements of what
precedes it. In case the proviso is bodily lifted and placed after
section 24(1)(b), section 24(2) will end with a "colon," which is
never done to end a provision. [Paras 174, 176][186 D-G][187
D-E]
Falcon Tyres Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2006) 6 SCC
530 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 734; Aswini Kumar Ghosh
& Anr v Arabinda Bose & Anr [1953] SCR 1; Jamshed
Guzdar v. State of Maharastra (2005) 2 SCC 591 :
[2005] 1 SCR 223 - relied on
INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. MANOHARLAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
State of Gujarat v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2017) 16
SCC 28 : [2017] 13 SCR 25; State of West Bengal v.
Swapan Kumar Guha and Ors (1982) 1 SCC 561 :
[1982] 3 SCR 121 - referred to
Marshall v. Cottingham [1982] Ch 82; Dingmar v.
Dingmar 2007 (2) All ER 382; Kennedy v Information
Commissioner and another (Secretary of State for Justice
intervening) [2012] 1 WLR 3524; Taylor v. Caribou
102 Me. 401, 67 A.2 (1907) - referred to
'Full Stop' and 'Colon', Vepa P. Sarathi in the Interpretation
of Statutes, Fifth Edition; Bennion on Statutory Interpretation -
referred to
7.5 The provision of section 24(1)(a) is clear that if an award
has not been passed, higher compensation to follow. No lapse is
provided. In case award has been passed within the window
period of section 24(1)(b), inter alia, the provisions for
compensation would be that of the Act of 1894. The only exception
to section 24(1) is created by the non-obstante clause in section
24(2) by providing that in case the requisite steps have not been
taken for 5 years or more, then there is lapse as a negative
condition. The proviso contemplates higher compensation, in
case compensation has not been paid, and the amount has not
been deposited with respect to the majority of the holdings, to all
the beneficiaries under the Act of 2013, who were holding land
on the date of notification under Section 4. If the proviso is added,
section 24(1)(b) will destroy the very provision of section 24(1)(b)
providing proceedings to continue under the Act of 1894, which
is not the function of the proviso to substitute the main Section
but to explain it. It is not to cause repugnancy with the main
provision. The function of the proviso is to explain or widen the
scope. It is a settled proposition of law that the proviso cannot
travel beyond the provision to which it is attached. The proviso
would travel beyond the Act of 1894 as it is the intention of section
24(1)(b) the proceedings to govern by the Act of 1894. Thus, the
proviso has no space to exist with section 24(1) (b), and it has
rightly not been attached by Parliament, with Section 24(2) and
has been placed at the right place where it should have been.
The proviso is part of the scheme of section 24(2), and the entire
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
19
provision of section 24(2), including the proviso, operates when
inaction is there for a period of 5 years or more, as contemplated
therein. [Paras 185, 186][197 D-H][198-A][198 C-D]
8. In re: Proviso to be read as part of provision it is
appended
A proviso has to be construed as a part of the clause to
which it is appended. A proviso is added to a principal provision
to which it is attached. It does not enlarge the enactment. In
case the provision is repugnant to the enacting part, the proviso
cannot prevail.