Cases of ‘no return of land’ under The Land Acquisition Act (old), 1894

INSTANCES WHERE RETURN OF LAND IS IMPERMISSIBLE BY LAND.

Section 101 Return of unutilized land[1]

When any land, acquired under this Act remains unutilised for a period of five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall be returned to the original owner or owners or their legal heirs, as the case may be, or to the Land Bank of the appropriate Government by reversion in the manner as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government.

Explanation.–For the purpose of this section, Land Bank means a governmental entity that focuses on the conversion of Government owned vacant, abandoned, unutilised acquired lands and tax-delinquent properties into productive use.

HARYANA STATE AMENDMENT[2]

Section 101A Power to denotify land

After section 101 of the Act, 2013, the following section shall be inserted, namely:- “101A. Power to denotify land. – When any public purpose, for which the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) becomes unviable or nonessential, the State Government shall be at liberty to denotify such land, on such terms, as considered expedient by the State Government, including the payment of compensation on account of damages, if any, sustained by the land owner due to such acquisition: Provided that where a part of the acquired land has been utilized or any encumbrances have been created, the landowner may be compensated by providing alternative land alongwith payment of damages, if any, as determined by the State Government.”

JUDGEMENTS

1. “Government to return unutilised land to the claimants in accordance with law.”[3]
2. Land Acquisition and Requisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – S. 24(2) Deemed lapse of 1894 Act acquisition proceedings under- When occasioned – Law clarified.[4]
   • Deemed lapse of proceedings initiated under 1894 Act is occasioned where award under S. 11 of the 1894 Act has been made five years or more prior to date of commencement of the 2013 Act, and the two conditions specified in S. 24(2) are cumulatively satisfied i.e.
     • (A) possession of the acquired land has not been taken, and
     • (B) compensation has not been paid
   • Even if one of these two conditions is not satisfied, the 1894 Act acquisition proceedings shall not lapse Word “or” used in S. 24(2) between the abovesaid two conditions in S. 24(2) has to be read as “nor” or as “and” – This is because where two negative conditions or two prohibitions are coupled by the word “or”, the said “or” has to be read as “and” or “nor”.
   • – If possession taken, but compensation not paid then there would be no lapse If compensation paid, but possession not taken then also there would be no lapse.
3. There is neither a specific provision made for divesting in S. 24(2) or otherwise in 2013 Act, nor does the 2013 Act by necessary intendment, imply such a drastic consequence Thus, divesting – cannot be said to have been intended under S. 24(2).
   • Once land vests in State it cannot be divested even if there is some irregularity in acquisition proceedings- Once possession of the acquired land has been taken by State and title to the same vests in State under the 1894 Act, if compensation is not paid, or, is not deposited in court, or, is deposited in the State treasury as per the applicable Rules and Standing Orders, held, in none of these cases would the acquisition itself suffer, but the non-payment of compensation would only attract higher interest under S. 34 of the 1894 Act, unless S. 24(2) proviso is attracted in the facts of the case, in which case compensation would be payable under the 2013 Act Government cannot withdraw from acquisition under S. 48 of the 1894 Act even if there is part – payment or non-payment of compensation, once it has taken possession of the acquired land and title has vested in it.
   • In case of retrospective operation, court has to consider the effect of existing rights and obligations – There is no fixed formula for the expression of legislative intent to give retrospectivity to an enactment The practical realities must be considered before analysing the extent of retrospective operation of the statute -It is presumed that law made by Parliament in respect of past events and transactions is in no manner unfair to those concerned unless a different intention appears One significant factor on which the extent of retrospectivity would depend, is the degree of unfairness would cause to the parties.
   • Property Law– Transfer of Property by Operation of Law – Vesting of title in State by acquisition thereof in accordance with law – There can be no divesting of such title vested in State unless statute expressly provides for the same or a necessary intendment in that regard can clearly be inferred – Land Acquisition and Requisition- Generally – Divesting of title once vested in State-Must be expressly provided for in statute- Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss. 16, 17, 48, 31 and 34.
4. Land Acquisition and Requisition- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – S. 24(1)(a)- In case the award in the 1894 Act acquisition proceedings concerned is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings-Compensation has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
5. Land Acquisition and Requisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – S. 24(1)(b) In case the award in the 1894 Act acquisition proceedings concerned, is passed within window period of five years excluding period covered by interim order(s) of court, proceedings shall continue as provided under S. 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act, under the 1894 Act as if not repealed.
6. Land Acquisition and Requisition – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – S. 24(2) and S. 24(1)(a)- Relative scope and applicability – S. 24(2) does not visualise a situation where possession has been taken under the urgency – – provision of S. 17(1) of the 1894 Act, but the award has not been made – Such cases would fall under S. 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, whereunder there is no lapse of entire proceedings: but compensation is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act, even if payment of compensation has not been made or tendered under S. 17(3-A) of the 1894 Act Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 17.[5]

[1] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

[2] Vide Haryana Act 21 of 2018, sec. 5 (w.e.f. 9-5-2018)

[3] State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bant Lal & Ors. (2019) 14 SCC 711

[4] Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 [CONSTITUTION BENCH]

[5]