This article is written by Moumita Banerjee, University of Burdwan, West Bengal, 3 Years LL.B. (H) during her internship with LeDroit.
Key Words: –
- Land Acquisition
- Right to fair compensation
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement
- Social Impact Assessment (SIA)
- Consent Requirements
- Eminent Domain
- Public purpose
- Procedural irregularities
Introduction:
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act), have distinct approaches to land acquisition, leading to different litigation hurdles.
Key Differences:
– 1894 Act:
– Focused on acquisition for public purposes, with limited compensation and rehabilitation provisions.
– Often led to disputes over compensation, land valuation, and acquisition procedures.
– 2013 Act:
– Emphasizes fair compensation, transparency, and rehabilitation for affected families.
– Introduced provisions for Social Impact Assessment (SIA), consent of landowners, and increased compensation.
Litigation Hurdles:
– 1894 Act:
– Disputes often centered around compensation, land valuation, and procedural irregularities.
– Courts frequently intervened, leading to prolonged litigation.
– 2013 Act:
– Litigation hurdles include:
– Consent requirements: Disputes arise when landowners’ consent is not obtained or is disputed.
– SIA and public purpose: Challenges to the SIA process, determination of public purpose, and acquisition decisions.
– Compensation and rehabilitation: Disputes over compensation amounts, rehabilitation packages, and implementation.
Comparison of Litigation Hurdles:
– Increased transparency and accountability: The 2013 Act’s emphasis on transparency and accountability has reduced litigation in some areas.
– Complexity in consent and SIA: The 2013 Act’s introduction of consent requirements and SIA has added complexity, leading to new litigation hurdles.
•Landmark Cases:-
Here are some landmark cases related to land acquisition disputes and litigation hurdles under the 2013 Act vs. 1894 Act:
Key Cases under the 2013 Act:
1) Delhi Development Authority vs. Dayanand & Ors. (2022): The Supreme Court clarified that acquisition proceedings do not lapse if possession has been taken, even if compensation has not been paid to the subsequent purchaser. The court also held that a subsequent purchaser does not have the locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
2) Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal (2020): The Supreme Court interpreted Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, stating that both conditions – not taking possession and not paying compensation – must be satisfied for the acquisition to lapse.
3) Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Shakeel Ahmed (2023): The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, emphasizing that the term “or” should be read as “nor” or “and”, setting stringent conditions for the deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings.
Key Cases under the 1894 Act:
1) Hori Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2019): The Supreme Court held that compensation for land acquired under the 1894 Act but awarded after the 2013 Act came into force should be determined based on the market value as of January 1, 2014.
2) Bansawaraj & Anr vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (2013): The Supreme Court discussed the application for condonation of delay in filing appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
These landmark cases have significantly shaped the landscape of land acquisition laws in India, providing clarity on various aspects of the 1894 and 2013 Act.
Conclusion:
The 2013 Act has brought about significant changes in land acquisition processes, aiming to reduce litigation and ensure fair compensation. However, new challenges have emerged, particularly regarding consent and SIA. Understanding these differences is crucial for navigating land acquisition disputes effectively.
