Pune Municipal
Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274 : 2014 SCC OnLine SC 59 at page
187
10. Insofar as sub-section (1) of Section 24 is
concerned, it begins with non obstante clause. By this, Parliament has given
overriding effect to this provision over all other provisions of the 2013 Act.
It is provided in clause (a) that where the land acquisition proceedings
have been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award under Section 11 is made,
then the provisions of the 2013 Act shall apply relating to the determination
of compensation. Clause (b) of Section 24(1) makes provision that where
land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the 1894 Act and award
has been made under Section 11, then such proceedings shall continue under the
provisions of the 1894 Act as if that Act has not been repealed.
11. Section
24(2) also begins with non obstante clause. This provision has overriding
effect over Section 24(1). Section 24(2) enacts that in relation to the land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act, where an award has been
made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and either of
the two contingencies is satisfied viz. (i) physical possession of the
land has not been taken, or (ii) the compensation has not been paid;
such acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. On the lapse of
such acquisition proceedings, if the appropriate Government still chooses to
acquire the land which was the subject-matter of acquisition under the 1894 Act
then it has to initiate the proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act. The proviso
appended to Section 24(2) deals with a situation where in respect of the
acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act an award has been made and
compensation in respect of a majority of landholdings has not been deposited in
the account of the beneficiaries then all the beneficiaries specified in the
Section 4 notification become entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act.
17.
……………….. In other words, the compensation may be said to have been “paid”
within the meaning of Section 24(2) when the Collector (or for that matter Land
Acquisition Officer) has discharged his obligation and deposited the amount of
compensation in court and made that amount available to the interested person
to be dealt with as provided in Sections 32 and 33
21. The argument on behalf of the Corporation
that the subject land acquisition proceedings have been concluded in all
respects under the 1894 Act and that they are not affected at all in view of
Section 114(2) of the 2013 Act, has no merit at all, and is noted to be
rejected. Section 114(1) of the 2013 Act repeals the 1894 Act. Sub-section (2)
of Section 114, however, makes Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
applicable with regard to the effect of repeal but this is subject to the
provisions in the 2013 Act. Under Section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings initiated
under the 1894 Act, by legal fiction, are deemed to have lapsed where award has
been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and
possession of the land is not taken or compensation has not been paid. The
legal fiction under Section 24(2) comes into operation as soon as conditions
stated therein are satisfied. The applicability of Section 6 of the General
Clauses Act being subject to Section 24(2), there is no merit in the contention
of the Corporation.
07.12.2017: TWO JUDGE INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2018) 1
SCC 733
23.
There is already a reference made as to the applicability of Section 24 in Yogesh
Neema v. State of M.P. [Yogesh Neema v. State of M.P.,
(2016) 6 SCC 387 : (2016) 3 SCC (Civ) 183] vide order dated 12-1-2016. There
are several other issues arising which have been mentioned above but have not
been considered in Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn.
v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ)
274] Thus, here is a case where the matter should be considered by a larger
Bench. Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India
for appropriate orders.
08.02.2018: Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412
: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 100 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 426 at page 549
214. In Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274] the land
acquisition had been quashed by the High Court in the year 2008. Most of the
special leave petitions were filed in this Court in the year 2008. The High
Court has quashed the acquisition proceedings and has directed restoration of
the possession. When the High Court has quashed the acquisition, there was no
room for this Court to entertain the submissions based upon Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act. There was no question of payment of compensation to the owners or
depositing it in the court as land acquisition itself had been quashed in 2008.
There was no subsisting acquisition and award. When the 2013 Act came into
force thus no question could have been raised as to non-compliance with Section
24 for five years or more. Thus, there was no question of taking possession or
payment of compensation as per provisions contained in Section 24(2). The
provisions contained in Section 24 could not be said to be applicable after
quashing/lapse of the proceedings. Thus, when the provisions of Section 24 were
not attracted to the fact situation of the case in Pune Municipal Corpn.
[Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3
SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274] , the decision cannot be said to be an
authority on a question which, in fact, did not arise for consideration of this
Court. Thus, the decision rendered on a question which was not germane to the
case cannot be said to be a binding precedent, it is obiter dicta and thus has
to be ignored.
216. With respect to the decision of
this Court in Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274] we have given
deep thinking whether to refer it to further larger Bench but it was not considered
necessary as we are of the opinion that Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune
Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 :
(2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274] has to be held per incuriam, inter alia, for the
following reasons:
21.02.2018: State of Haryana v. G.D.
Goenka Tourism Corpn. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 585 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 145 :
(2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 572 at page 587
9. Taking all this into consideration, we are of the
opinion that it would be appropriate if in the interim and pending a final
decision on making a reference (if at all) to a larger Bench, the High Courts
be requested not to deal with any cases relating to the interpretation of or
concerning Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Secretary
General will urgently communicate this order to the Registrar General of every
High Court so that our request is complied with.
10. Insofar as the cases pending in this Court are concerned, we request the
Benches concerned dealing with similar matters to defer the hearing until a
decision is rendered one way or the other on the issue whether the matter
should be referred to a larger Bench or not. Apart from anything else,
deferring the consideration would avoid inconvenience to the litigating
parties, whether it is the State or individuals.
22-2-2018 Supreme Court in Indore Development
Authority v. Shyam Verma [Indore Development Authority v. Shyam
Verma, SLPs (C) Nos. 9798-99 of 2016, order dated 22-2-2018 (SC)] passed
the following order:
“Vide order dated 18-4-2016 Indore
Development Authority v. Shyam Verma [Indore Development
Authority v. Shyam Verma, SLPs (C) Nos. 9798-99 of 2016 with SLPs
(Civil) Nos. 9036-38 of 2016, order dated 18-4-2016 (SC), wherein it was
directed:“List these matters after the decision in SLP (Civil) No. 10742 of
2008. Status quo shall be maintained in the meantime. It would be open to the
respondents to file counter-affidavit.”] , this matter was directed to be
listed after the decision in SLP (Civil) No. 10742 of 2008. The same has since
been decided in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra [Indore
Development Authority v. Shailendra, (2018) 3 SCC 412] . A copy of
order dated 21-2-2018 in State of Haryana v. G.D. Goenka Tourism
Corpn. Ltd. [State of Haryana v. G.D. Goenka Tourism Corpn. Ltd.,
(2018) 3 SCC 585] has been shown to this Court by Mr Rohatgi, Senior Advocate.
We are of the view that having regard to the nature of the issues involved in
the matter, the issues need to be resolved by a larger Bench at the earliest.
These matters may be placed before the appropriate Bench tomorrow i.e.
23-2-2018, as per orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.
22.02.2018: another two-Judge
Bench of Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Maharana Pratap
Charitable Trust [State of Haryana v. Maharana Pratap Charitable
Trust, Civil Appeal No. 4835 of 2015, order dated 22-2-2018 (SC)] passed
the following order:
“In view of
the order of this Court dated 21-2-2018 in State of Haryana v. G.D.
Goenka Tourism Corpn. Ltd. [State of Haryana v. G.D. Goenka
Tourism Corpn. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 585] , that has been placed before this
Court, we consider it appropriate that these matters be referred to the Hon'ble
the Chief Justice to constitute an appropriate Bench and to see whether we can
proceed with the hearing or not. Since a larger issue is involved, we refer the
matters to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to be dealt with by an appropriate Bench,
as his Lordship may consider appropriate.”
5
JUGES - 06.03.2018 : Indore Development Authority
v. Shyam Verma, (2018) 3 SCC 405 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 261 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 420 at
page 411
8.
Keeping in view the aforesaid orders, it was thought appropriate by the Chief
Justice of India to constitute a Constitution Bench to deal with all the issues
in an apposite manner, and that is how these matters have been placed before
us.
10. We would have proceeded for hearing of
these matters but as we are in the midst of hearing of another Constitution
Bench matter, we think it appropriate to list these matters after conclusion of
hearing of Item No. 506 i.e. WP (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016. However, the matters
shall remain in the cause-list.
