Read Time: 07 minutes

The Supreme Court recently held that the provision under section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 prescribing a 2-year period before lapse of land acquisition proceedings will not be applicable after the repeal of the Act and after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has came into force.

Section 11A requires that an award under Section 11 must be passed within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is so made, the proceedings for acquisition of land shall lapse. As per the explanation, the period during which any action or proceedings to be taken pursuant to the declaration is stayed by an order of a court is to be excluded while calculating the period of two years.

These developments came while the top court was deciding whether the two-year period specified under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will apply even after the repeal of the 1894 Act, or the twelve-month period specified in Section 25 of the 2013 Act will apply for the awards made under clause (a) of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act?

In this regard, the Court observed that considering the object of Sections 24, and 26 to 30 of the Act of 2013, practical absurdities and anomalies could arise if the two year period was applied to awards made under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.

A 2-judge bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna further opined that such dual principles would mitigate against the underlying legislative intent behind prescription of time for making of an award in respect of saved acquisition proceedings initiated under the repealed 1894 Act. 

In the appeal before it, the court was dealing with a notification issued by the State of Maharashtra under the 1894 Act for acquisition of 103.86 hectares of land on June 16, 2011 which was followed by publication of declarations, the last of which was issued on August 8, 2012.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer then passed an award under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act on October 30, 2014 which was challenged before the Bombay High Court.

While allowing the said award, the Bombay High Court held that the award ought to have been passed within two years from the date of the declaration under Section 6 in terms of Section 11A of the 1894 Act.

The Supreme Court was of the view that Section 24(1)(a) would apply in the present case since the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act had not culminated in an award till the repeal of the 1894 Act and this obviated the necessity to issue a fresh notification under the 2013 Act.

Further reliance was placed on Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others wherein a constitution bench  held that if proceedings for acquisition were initiated under the 1894 Act but no award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act had been made, the provisions of the 2013 Act would apply.

Accordingly, the Court has held that Section 25 of the 2013 Act would apply to the awards made and published under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act.

"The limitation period for passing/making of an award under Section 24(1)(a) in terms of Section 25 of the 2013 Act would commence from 1st January 2014, that is, the date when the 2013 Act came into force", added the Bench.

Hence, the impugned judgment of the High Court whereby it set aside the award and held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed was, set aside.

Cause Title: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GOSIKHURD PROJECT AMBADI, BHANDARA, MAHARASHTRA VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v MAHESH AND OTHERS