DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894: CASE STUDY

LAND LAWS

SUBMITTED TO:

MR. VISHNU KUMAR

SUBMITTED BY:

PIYUSH KUMAR MISHRA

2014078

SEMESTER VII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have been taught the subject of Land Laws by our respected professor, Mr. Vishnu Kumar
who helped us all through in the accomplishment of this project. I sincerely thank to the
respected professor, who helped us to gather the various sources which we could give final
shape to the topic under study. He not only provided us a platform to compile but also guided
us at all levels.

I, also thank the members of the library staff and computer section for the cooperation in
making available the books and accessing the internet even during their free time.

I hope that the project in its present form shall be received by all.

Thank You:-

Piyush Kumar Mishra

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction............................................................................................................2

Synopsis..................................................................................................................3

Preliminary notification..........................................................................................6

Publication..............................................................................................................9

Declaration.............................................................................................................11

Objections...............................................................................................................13

Public purpose........................................................................................................16

Case analysis...........................................................................................................23

Conclusions.............................................................................................................24

Recommendation.....................................................................................................26

Bibliography............................................................................................................27
INTRODUCTION

Property guarantees freedom to individuals, when it is land, it embodies a bundle of rights.

Land is one of the scarce natural resource in the world. It is not possible either to increase or
to decrease the land. It is to be ensured that land is managed judiciously and in a suitable
manner to the common good of people that can be ensured in a long run. Property is special
because it allocates scarce resources and is fundamental for the exercise of other rights. In
other words, property rights determine access to the basic means of subsistence; they are the
prerequisite to the meaningful exercise of all other rights. In Waman Rao v. Union of India1 a
constitutional bench had observed that India being a predominantly agricultural society, there
is a strong linkage between the land and the personal status in the social system. The tip of
land on which they till and live, assumes them equal justice and dignity of their person by
providing to them a near decent means of livelihood.

Right to property is the natural and inherent right of individual. Hence, every individual has a
right to own and possess the property. This conflicts of rights i.e., the right of the individual to
protect his property and the right of the State to acquire property of the subjects has become a
matter of debate in this decade. Eminent domain is the incidental exercise of sovereign power
of the State to acquire private property for public purpose by providing just compensation.
The power of eminent domain has been explained that when public need requires acquisition
of property, the need is not to be denied because of an individuals unwillingness to sell.
When the need arises, individuals may be required to relinquish ownership of property, so
long as they are given just compensation. Salus Populi Est Supreme Lex means welfare of the
people is only consideration may be said to be the corner stone of the law of the land. The
maxim means that regard for the public welfare is the highest law. This phrase is based on
the implied agreement of every member of society that his own individual welfare shall in
cases of necessity yield to the community; and that his property, liberty and life shall, under
certain, circumstances, be placed in jeopardy or even sacrificed for the public good. necessitas
publica major est quam private means public necessity is greater than private necessity,
application of this doctrine in India gives immense powers to the State for acquiring land for
public purpose. State can expropriate property rights through compulsory acquisition
processes. Compulsory acquisition law, as a restraint on the property right of individual
therefore, people cannot sell-off their property as per their wish. The exercise of such power

1
AIR 1981 SC 271
has been recognized in the jurisprudence of all civilized countries as conditioned by public
necessity and payment of compensation. On these two maxims whole law of Land
Acquisition is based.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In India, the Land Acquisition Act (LAA) 1894 had served as the basis for all government
acquisition of land for public purposes. The first land acquisition law was enacted during the
British Raj in 1824, which underwent several modifications and was finally replaced by the
LAA, 1894. The GoI in 1947 adopted the LAA 1894. The land acquisition process as per the
LAA 1894 . The Constitution of India placed Acquisition and requisitioning of property as
Entry 42 in the Concurrent List. This meant that both the Centre and States could make laws
governing land acquisition. However, in case of a conflict between the central and state law,
the central legislation would prevail. The Act was reviewed by various committees appointed
by the GoI. In 1967, a committee was appointed by the GoI to study, consult and recommend
principles to amend the 1894 Act. As a result of such reviews, the LAA 1894 was amended 17
times, after independence in 1947, by various elected governments. The major amendments to
LAA 1894 are described in Various State Governments also amended the Act in order to
respond to the local demands, like in the case of Land Acquisition (Amendment and
Validation) Act of 1967 by the state of Karnataka. 2 The Standing Committee on Rural
Development (SCRD), in its report on the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(LARR) Bill 2011, a precursor to RFCTLARR, explained the amendments made over the
years.3

Initially, the exercise of the doctrine of Eminent Domain was limited to acquiring land for
public purpose such as roads, railways, canals, and social purposes like state run schools and
hospitals. The Act, however, added the words or Company to public purpose to distinguish
land acquisition by the State for public purposes from land acquisition by the State for a
Company. Moreover, acquisition of land for Companies was restricted to Railway
Companies, until by an amendment effected in 1933, acquisition was permitted for the
2
Land Acquisition Law in India: A historical perspective, Vikas Nandal, International Journal of
Innovative Research and Studies, May 2014, Vol 3 Issue 5, accessed on February 9, 2015;
http://www.ijirs.com/vol3_issue-5/33.pdf
3
Standing Committee report on the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011,
Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, accessed on
February 9, 2015;
http://dolr.nic.in/dolr/downloads/pdfs/Land%20Acquisition,%20Rehabilitation%20and%20Resettleme
nt%20Bi ll%202011%20-%20SC%28RD%29%27s%2031st%20Report.pdf
erection of dwelling houses for workmen employed by the Company or for the provision of
amenities directly connected therewith. The ambit of the LAA 1894 was then significantly
expanded by a number of amendments in 1962 which permitted acquisition for a Company
which is engaged or is taking steps for engaging itself in any industry or work which is for a
public purpose. The amendments made in 1984 in the LAA 1894 extinguished any
differentiation between acquisition for a State purpose and acquisition for a private enterprise
or State enterprise by amending section 44 of the original Act to insert the words or for a
Company after any public purpose. However, the law failed to address some important issues
associated with land acquisition, particularly forcible acquisitions, the definition of public
purpose, widespread misuse the of urgency clause, compensation, lack of transparency in the
acquisition process, participation of communities whose land was being acquired and lack of
R&R package. Due to a lack of clear definition of public purpose, there had been considerable
difference of opinion among various judgments of the Supreme Court (SC), which resulted in
granting very broad discretionary powers to the state in terms of deciding the contours of
public purpose under particular circumstances. In the State of Bombay v. R. S. Nanji 1956,
the SC observed, It is impossible to precisely define the expression public purpose. In each
case, all the facts and circumstances will require to be closely examined in order to determine
whether a public purpose has been established. Prima facie, the government is the best judge
as to whether public purpose is served by issuing a requisition order, but it is not the sole
judge. The courts have the jurisdiction and it is their duty to determine the matter whenever a
question is raised whether a requisition order is or is not for a public purpose. 5 In the 1988
case of Coffee Board v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the SC again stated, Eminent
domain is an essential attribute of sovereignty of every State and authorities are universal in
support of the definition of eminent domain as the power of the sovereign to take property for
public use without the owners consent upon making just compensation.6

AIMS & OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This research paper deals with right to property and analyses how through the process of
Constitutional amendments, the State has deconstructed this right and how the judiciary has

4
Section 4 of the 1894 Act deals with the publication of preliminary notification for acquisition of a
particular land and the powers of the officers thereon
5
Judicial interpretation of Public Purpose with respect to land rights, Sreya B, Social Science
Research Network, July 8, 2013, accessed on February 9, 2015;
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2290863
6
Ibid.
tried to restore and defend this inherent right of citizens. It also examines the eminent domain
dogma, and the Constitutional manifestation of this power. It elaborates how the state has
been using this power to acquire private property and what are the safeguards that should be
in place to prevent the state from becoming totalitarian and misusing this power for private
gains. This chapter deals with the concept of property, its emergence in civil world and the
concept for preservation, protection and proprietorship of property. The notions and theories
of property are detailed out in the chapter. The chapter especially focusses on right to property
under the Indian Constitution. The chapter also interlinks the right to property with land
acquisition process and therein bring out and analyze legal intricacies.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Whether the new act of 2013 has been able to fill the gap of 1984 act?

Whether the new act of 2013 has really provided a better procedure for compensation and
rehabilitation as compared to 1894 Act?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Nothing is created in vacuum. The researcher is humbly grateful to all the authors of past on
the subject. The primary source for the work is Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which played long
innings in the history of India for the land acquisition. Bela Banerjees and K.T. Plantations
by the Indian Supreme Court has been locus classicus on the subject. The Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 has replaced the Act of 1894 and made it more meaningful has also been a primary
document on the subject for research.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research adopted basically is doctrinal in nature, and the emphasis is to analyze the
statutory provisions, with the help of the opinions of jurists and policy framers available in
current Law and journals in India and abroad and on internet websites. The judicial
interpretation which is helping in the emergence of a new corporate jurisprudence is a major
area of analysis. For the purpose of primary data scholar would endeavoured to collect views
of legal, social, political luminaries in various professions as academics, and practitioners of
law. The effort of the scholar is in toto; an observation on various events/incidents would also
be used as a primary data for the purpose of the study. Keeping in view the nature of the
problem analytical method has been adopted. In accordance with this method apart from the
material from decided cases attempts have been made to use facts and information already
available and analyze them to make a critical evaluation of the problem. While analyzing
specific controversial issues, which often arise, conceptual methodology has been adopted
which is generally used to develop new norms or to re-interpret existing ones.

LIMITATION & AMBIT OF THE WORK

The present work is aimed at studying the land acquisition with keeping in mind the social
concern. The primary objective has been to correlate the law as it stands to the practice
actually followed, and to test it against contemporary developments. The work sets out the
historical and theoretical framework of land acquisition and public purpose requirement. The
theory itself has been critically analyzed, keeping in view the development of law through
judicial pronouncements and a comparative analysis with laws of other countries. For the sake
of convenience the work has been divided into several chapters focusing on different aspect of
the law, which would be discussed in the foregoing pages. The work makes a very cursory
study regarding inter-relationship of corporate governance and land acquisition. The work
also is very limited with relation to ladies as a stakeholder of land acquisition process.

CHAPTER-1

PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION

Section 4(1) Whenever it appears to the [appropriate Government] the land in any locality [is
needed or] is likely to be needed for any public purpose [or for a company], a notification to
that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette [and in two daily newspapers circulating
in that locality of which at least one shall be in the regional language], and the Collector shall
cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in
the said locality [(the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice
, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification)].7

Section 11-Whenever, it appears to the appropriate Government that land in any area is
required or likely to be required for any public purpose, a preliminary notification under
Section 11 in rural or urban areas shall be published.

7
Land Acquisition Act, 1984
Publication of Notification:

The Preliminary Notification shall be published in the following manner:-

(a) in the Official Gazette;

(b) in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of required area of which one shall be in
the regional language;

(c) in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation, and in the
offices of the District Collector, the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil;

(d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government;

Immediately after issuance of the notification, the concerned Gram Sabha or municipalities
shall be informed of the contents of the notification issued in all cases of land acquisition at a
meeting called especially for this purpose.

The notification to be issued shall contain details of the land to be acquired, a statement on the
nature of the public purpose involved, reasons necessitating the displacement of affected
persons, summary of the Social Impact Assessment Report and particulars of the
Administrator appointed for the purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement.8

CHAPTER-2

CASE ANALYSIS

Pune Municipal Corporation v Harakchand Misrimal Solanki

FACTS

The brief facts necessary for consideration of the above question are these. On 06.08.2002,
the proposal of the Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation (for short,
Corporation) duly approved by the Standing Committee for acquisition of lands

8
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013
admeasuring 43.94 acres for development of Forest Garden was sent to the Collector, Pune.
The Collector sanctioned the proposal and on 20.02.2003 forwarded the same to Special Land
Acquisition Officer (15), Pune for further action. On 30.09.2004, the notification under
Section 4 of the 1894 Act was published in the official gazette. Then notices under Section
4(1)were served upon the landowners/interested persons. On 26.12.2005, the declaration
under Section 6 was published in the official gazette and on 02.02.2006, it was also published
at the site and on the notice board of the Office of Talaltti. Following the notices
under Section 9, on 31.01.2008 the Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award
under Section 11 of the 1894 Act.

ISSUES

Whether the acquisition proceedings were lapsed on account of non- compliance with
statutory provisions?

REASONING/PROVISIONS OF LAW INVOLVED

24. (1) notwithstanding anything contained in this Act. in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894,- (a) where no award under
section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act
relating to the determination of compensation shall apply; or (6) where an award under said
section I I has been made, (hen such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the
said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition

proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, where an award under the said
section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the
physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the
said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so
chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the
provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in
respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the
beneficiaries, then, ail beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section
4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the
provisions of this Act.
JUDGEMENT

The Acquisition proceedings have been lapsed due to non-compliance with the statutory
provision of section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Ram Kishan & Ors v State of Haryana & Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 347

FACTS

The appellants are the owners and in possession of the land. The appellants have been in
continuous possession of the aforesaid land in question till date. On 20.01.2003 the
respondents published a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Thereafter on 16.01.2004, the respondents issued notification under Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award dated 14.01.2006. The
appellants challenged the said notification in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The
High Court vides its judgment and order dated 13.03.2008 dismissed the writ petition by
assigning untenable reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed an appeal in the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether petition is maintainable after passing of the award?

Interpretation of five years period:

With regard to this issue viz. interpretation of five years period, two situations have been
envisaged in cases where the acquisition has been initiated under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894:

(1) parties whose lands have been acquired have refused to accept the compensation

(2) parties whose lands have been acquired having just parted with physical possession of the
land. However, in both the above situations, as on 1-1-2014, the period of 5 years would not
have ended and in such cases, the advisory seeks to clarify that the new law shall apply only if
the situation of pendency continues unchanged for a period that equals to or exceeds five
years. In my view, it should be further clarified that in none of the cases the period of five
years would have lapsed pursuant to an award made under Section 11 from the date of
commencement of the Act and that the benefit of Section 24(2) will be available to those
cases which are pending and where during pendency, the situation has remained unchanged
with physical possession not being handed over or compensation not having been accepted
and the period equals to or exceeds five years

Limitation:

As regards this item relating to the period spent during litigation would also be accounted for
the purpose of determining whether the period of five years has to be counted or not, it should
be clarified that it will apply only to cases where awards were passed under Section 11 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 5 years or more prior to 1-1-2014 as specified in Section 24(2) of
the Act, to avoid any ambiguity.

JUDGEMENT

In view of the aforesaid decision the application filed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013
is allowed. Consequently, having regard to the facts of this case, this appeal is allowed by
quashing the acquisition proceedings in so far as the land of the applicants/appellant are
concerned.

ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE

Nand Kishore Gupta v State of U.P AIR 2010 SC 3654.

FACTS

Notification dated 20.2.2009 was issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section
4(1) read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. - for a public purpose,
namely, the construction of Yamuna Expressway Project in District Agra. In the Writ
Petitions, in High Court, directions were sought, firstly not to give effect to the notifications
issued and further not to dispossess the landholders/ petitioners after demolishing their
constructions on the lands which were proposed to be acquired. However, Writ Petitions filed
by the land owners challenging the notification relating to Yamuna Expressway Project, were
dismissed by the High Court. The High Court, in the judgment dated 30.11.2009 pointed out
that out of 12,282 land owners, 11,397had already received their compensation under the
agreement and the challenge related only to 21.03 hectares out of 1,604 hectares of land. The
High Court also took the view that the scales of justice must tilt towards the right to
development of the millions who will be benefited from the road and the development of the
area, as against the human rights of 35 petitioners therein. The High Court also declined to
give any direction to the State Government to consider to exempt 21.03 hectares of land
relating to the 35 petitioners therein on the premise that any direction to exempt the land
covered by the construction might seriously jeopardize the Project.

ISSUES

The appellants very seriously challenged the application of urgency under Sections
17(1) and 17(4) of the Act to these acquisitions, thereby depriving the appellants of an
opportunity to be heard under Section 5A of the Act.
The other major challenge opposing the acquisition related to the concept of public
purpose as being an acquisition without any public purpose.

Whether there was any colourable exercise of power?

JUDGEMENT

When the Project conceived in 2001, the present Company was not in existence. It came in
existence only later on. This is an admitted position also. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
whole Project was envisaged keeping this Company in view. Hence no colorable exercise of
power. Company gets no proprietary or ownership rights over the Project assets. Even if it is
presumed that the compensation is coming from the Company, then it will have to be held that
the whole assets would go to the Company. We are completely convinced that there was
necessity in this Project of invoking urgency clause considering the various reasons like
enormousness of the Project, likelihood of the encroachments, number of appellants who
would have required to be heard and the time taken for that purpose, and the fact that the
Project had been delayed already from 2001 till 2008. we are of the clear opinion that the
challenge by the appellants on the ground that there was no urgency and, therefore, the
enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act should not have been dispensed with, cannot be
accepted. We hold accordingly. There is no merit in the appeals. They are dismissed.
Special Deputy Collector v J Sivaprakasm AIR 2011 SC 922.

FACTS

Area of 4.89 acres of land (which includes 54 cents in S.No 186/1 and 1.09 acres of land in
S.No. 186/2, in all 1.63 acres, which is the subject matter of this appeal) in Koyambedu
Village, Chennai District was notified for acquisition. The Purpose was implementation of
Koyambedu Wholesale market complex. Notification dated 13.11.1998 issued under section
4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Notification was published in the T.N. Gazette dated
15.12.1998. It was also published in two daily Tamil newspapers Maduari Mani and
Kadiravan on 6.1.1999.

ISSUES

Whether the finding of the High Court that the two regional language newspapers did not
have reasonably wide circulation in the locality and therefore there is non-compliance with
the provisions of section 4(1), calls for interference?

Whether the land acquisition is invalid?

JUDGEMENT

The purpose of publication of the notification is twofold: to ensure that adequate publicity is
given so that land owners and persons interested will have an opportunity to file their
objections under Section 5A of the Act to put the land owners/occupants on notice that
government officers will be entering upon the property for carrying on the activities
enumerated in section 4(2) of the Act. As the State Gazettes do not have a wide circulation
and public notice of the notification at convenient places in the locality would give notice
only in specific pockets in the locality. Legislature therefore provided for publication in two
newspapers (of which at least one being in the regional language) to have a wider reach.
Having regard to the object and purpose of the provision, it is evident that publication should
be in newspapers which have a reasonably good circulation in the locality. If the publication
is to be made in newspapers having only token or insignificant circulation, that will defeat the
very purpose of providing for publication in newspapers. It will not be possible to invalidate
the entire acquisition on the ground that the publication in the said two newspapers did not
fulfil requirement of publication in newspapers circulating in that locality. The objections on
behalf of the holders of the land had been considered. No prejudice has been caused on
account of the publication of the notification in two newspapers having limited circulation in
the locality. In view of the above, we are of the view that the acquisition has to be upheld.
Accordingly we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the division bench of
the High Court. We uphold the acquisition and dismiss the writ petition filed by the
respondents.

Kusum R Nadiadwala v State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 2718

FACTS

The appellants are the legal heirs of deceased Ismail Nadiadwala. During the lifetime of
Ismail Nadiadwala, the State Government had issued notifications under Sections 4 of the Act
to acquire various lands for a public purpose, for establishing military personnel ordinance on
the land which belonged to late Ismail Nadiadwala and one Ibrahim Nadiadwala. After such
acquisition and without issuing any notice to the appellants and after hearing only Ibrahim
Nadiadwala, the award was passed on 23.09.1986. Immediately, thereafter, Ibrahim Nadiadwala
had requested the State Government to permit him to look into the records to find out whether
he was issued with any notice. Since such permission was not granted to him, he had filed a
petition before High Court inter alia, questioning the notifications issued under Sections 4 of
the Act. High Court has dismissed the writ petition

JUDGMENT

Mandatory requirement as required under Section 4(1) of the Act is not complied with by the
respondents, while acquiring the lands in question, the entire acquisition proceedings requires
to be declared as null and void. All the formalities of serving notice to the interested person,
stipulated under Section 4 of the Act, has to be mandatorily complied with in the manner
provided therein, even though the interested persons have knowledge of the acquisition
proceedings. It is settled law that when any statutory provision provides a particular manner
for doing a particular act, the said thing or act must be done in accordance with the manner
prescribed in the Act. Because the parties concerned were aware of the acquisition
proceedings or served with individual notices does not alter the position. Merely because the
landowners failed to submit their objections within 15 days after the publication of
notification under Section 4(1), the authorities cannot be permitted to claim that it need not be
strictly resorted to.

V Chandrasekaran & Anr. v. The Administrative Officer & Ors (2012) 12 SCC 133

FACTS

In respect of the suit land, the persons interested/tenure-holders never filed any objections u/s.
5A of the Act, nor did they challenge the acquisition proceedings at any stage. They accepted
the compensation amount under protest for inadequacy of compensation amount. Possession
of the suit land was taken over by the Authority. Thereafter, the tenure-holders transferred the
suit land in favour of the appellants in the year 2004 and 2005. Appellants claimed to have
acquired possession of the suit land. They also obtained permission from the Development
Authority to construct flat thereon. The original tenure-holders filed applications for re-
conveyance of the suit land, which was rejected.

ISSUES

Whether the subsequent purchaser of after notification is entitled to benefit of land policy?

JUDGEMENT

Once the land is vested in the State, free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested and
proceedings under the Act would not lapse, even if an award is not made within the statutorily
stipulated period. The land, once acquired, cannot be restored to the tenure holders/persons-
interested, even if it is not used for the purpose for which it was so acquired, or for any other
purpose either. The proceedings cannot be withdrawn/ abandoned under the provisions of
Section 48 of the Act, or under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act.

UOI v Krishan Lal Arneja AIR 2004 SC 3582

FACTS

In all, 14 properties including the properties in question in these appeals, were notified for
acquisition on 6th March, 1987 under the provisions of Section 4 and Section 17(1)&(4) of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Earlier properties requisitioned by the appellant - The
provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 were
going to lapse on 10th March, 1987 Out of these 14 properties, Banwari Lal and Sons had
questioned the validity of acquisition proceedings pertaining to property no. 6, and Shakuntala
Gupta pertaining to property no. 2, by separate writ petitions.

ISSUES

Whether acquisition proceedings could be challenged by a tenant having subsistent interest in

the land?

JUDGEMENT

The impugned notification is a common and composite notification in respect of all the 14
properties. The ground of urgency also being common, it is not possible to accept that the
decision rendered in the cases of Banwarl Lal or Shakuntala Gupta on the question of urgency
was properties specific. It is not the case that the ground of urgency was different in respect of
different properties which fact is clear from the composite notification. The Authority must
have objective satisfaction of the need for invoking urgency clause under Section 17 keeping
in mind the nature of the public purpose, real urgency that the situation demands and the time
factor. Normally urgency to acquire a land for public purpose does not arise suddenly or
overnight but sometimes such urgency may arise unexpectedly, exceptionally or
extraordinarily depending on situations such as due to earthquake, flood or some specific
time-bound project where the delay is likely to render the purpose nugatory or infructuous. It
is clear from Section 5A(3) of the Act that for the purpose of the said Section, a person shall
be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation
if the land were acquired. Thus, a tenant having sufficient subsisting interest in the land can
challenge the acquisition proceedings.

Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Manav Dharam Trust and Another.

FACTS

On behalf of the appellants contention is - the transfer is in violation of The Delhi

Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, hence transfers in favour of the writ
petitioners are hence void, and accordingly, the beneficiary of an illegal/void
transaction is not entitled to file a case for any relief.

ISSUES

Whether the subsequent purchasers/assignees/power of attorney holders, etc., have

locus standi to file a petition for a declaration of lapse of acquisition proceedings
under Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

JUDGEMENT

It is seen that the Land Policy expressly conferred that right only on that person whose
land was acquired. In other words, the person must be the owner of the land on the
date on which notification under Section 4(1) was published. By necessary
implication, the subsequent purchaser becomes disentitled to the benefit of the Land
Policy. In Meera Sahni - Court dealt with the provisions under the Delhi Act, 1972.
it is by now well settled law that under the Land Acquisition Act, the subsequent
purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that he would be only
entitled to get the compensation. There is a clear indication that the Act proposes to
protect the interest of those persons, among others who are affected by the acquisition.
The subsequent purchasers/successors, etc., in the cases before us, are all people
affected by the acquisition, and therefore, also they are entitled to seek a declaration
on lapse under the 2013 Act. Thus, the subsequent purchaser, the assignee, the
successor in interest, the power of attorney, etc., are all persons who are interested in
compensation/land owners/affected persons in terms of the 2013 Act, and such
persons are entitled to file a case for a declaration that the land acquisition proceedings
have lapsed by virtue of operation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. In the peculiar
facts and circumstances of these cases, the appellants are given a period of six months
to exercise its liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act for initiation of the
acquisition proceedings afresh.

State Of Kerala V Mariyamma (2006) 200 CTR Ker 361

FACTS
The matter arose from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvananthapuram
in execution of an award passed in L.A.R. No. 120 of 1993 of that Court. This Court
considered the principles to be followed while calculating the amounts due to a decree
holder in a Land Acquisition Case, the obligation on the Land Acquisition Officer to
deduct income tax from the amounts to be deposited, the method of calculating the
interest awardable under different heads and also the principles to be followed while
adjusting the part payments effected by the judgment debtor.

ISSUES

Whether the amount which the State remits towards Income Tax can be ignored by the
executing Court while calculating the amount due to the decree holder?

JUDGEMENT

According to the decree holder, the entire amount due as on the date of deposit of the
amount has to be calculated and any amount deposited will have to be adjusted
towards interest first and after wiping of the entire interest if any further amount is
deposited, that has to be adjusted towards the principal amount. According to the
claimant, the Land Acquisition Officer is not entitled to deduct any amount towards
the amount payable under the Income Tax Act. The learned Senior Government
Pleader has argued that the adjustment of the amount deposited towards interest first in
view of the provisions contained in Order XXI, R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
not applicable to a deposit made in a land acquisition case. It is submitted that the
proper method is to calculate the five components payable on the date of deposit and
adjust the amount deposited towards the land value, additional amount and solatium
first. It is argued that if the amount deposited is sufficient to discharge the land value,
additional amount and solatium, thereafter the claimant can only claim the interest
accrued as on that day. It is argued that the claimants are not entitled to claim any
interest on the interest already accrued on additional compensation and solatium. It is
also argued that a statutory duty is cast upon the Land Acquisition Officer to deduct
the income tax due on the amount payable by way of compensation and the remedy
available to the claimant is to get a certificate from the competent officer and produce
the same before the Income Tax Department and if he is entitled to claim exemption or
refund of any amount, such a claim is to be made before the Income Tax Officer.
Hanamappa and Ors. v. The Special Land Acquisition, ILR 1998 KAR 4071

FACTS

The Land Acquisition Officer made a reference as provided under Sub-section (2)
of Section 18 of the Act on 16th of October 1984 to the Civil Court, that is, 4 years, 3
months and 21 days after the date of the reference application made by the petitioner.
The learned First Additional Civil Judge, Muddebihal, by his order dated 10th of
August 1993, rejected the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer on the
ground that the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer was beyond three
years and ninety days from the date of the application filed seeking reference and,
therefore, the reference made was illegal and without jurisdiction and as such, the
Court has no jurisdiction to act upon the said reference.

ISSUE

Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a reference and consider
the claim of the claimant for adjudication for payment of higher compensation?

JUDGEMENT

It is for the reason that it has failed to take notice of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Thakoredas(supra) which has conclusively held that application
under Section 18(3)(b) for compelling the making of reference by the Deputy
Commissioner can be filed only within 3 years from the date of expiry of 90 days
prescribed under Section 18(3)(a). Therefore, question of excluding the period during
which reference application remains pending with the Deputy Commissioner cannot at
all arise. The learned Judge seems to have proceeded on the basis that in the case of
failure on part of the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference within the time
prescribed under Section 18(3)(a), the applicant can file a reference application
straightaway in the Civil Court under Section 18(3)(b), which is obviously a wrong
reading of Section 18(3) of the Act. The said provision merely confers a right on the
applicant to file an application in the Court for compelling the Deputy Commissioner
to make the reference.

Chander Mal v Union of India

FACTS

It is for the reason that it has failed to take notice of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the case of Thakoredas(supra) which has conclusively held that application
under Section 18(3)(b) for compelling the making of reference by the Deputy
Commissioner can be filed only within 3 years from the date of expiry of 90 days
prescribed under Section 18(3)(a). Therefore, question of excluding the period during
which reference application remains pending with the Deputy Commissioner cannot at
all arise. The learned Judge seems to have proceeded on the basis that in the case of
failure on part of the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference within the time
prescribed under Section 18(3)(a), the applicant can file a reference application
straightaway in the Civil Court under Section 18(3)(b), which is obviously a wrong
reading of Section 18(3) of the Act. The said provision merely confers a right on the
applicant to file an application in the Court for compelling the Deputy Commissioner
to make the reference.

ISSUE

Whether the claimants are entitled to the benefit of the land once the possession have
been taken?

JUDGEMENT

The provisions of Section 34 of the Act clearly contemplate responsibility of the State
to pay the prescribed rate of interest directly relatable to the time taken i.e. from the
time the possession of the acquired lands is taken till the payment. The authorities
could avoid this liability by paying the compensation to the claimants or even
depositing the same in court. There can be no excuse on the part of the respondents in
not depositing the amount in the court of competent jurisdiction. The authorities can
hardly be heard to argue that the claimants did not come forward to take their
payments of compensation and the authorities also did not deposit the same as per the
scheme of the Act. Retention of money by the Land and Building Department or the
beneficiary for whose benefit the land was acquired would be no compliance to the
provisions of the Act. The liability is absolute in terms and does not admit any
ambiguity or created exceptions by the respondents because of their own default. The
 possession may be taken even prior to making of the award but in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and in that event the claimants would be entitled to interest on
the amount of compensation which is not paid or deposited on or before taking the
possession. The interest has to be calculated from the date of taking of possession of
the land by the Collector until the amount is paid or deposited.

Conclusion

In particular, public concern has intensified since the media reported on the
Kalinganagar Firing, which occurred in Orissa State in 2006, and the tragic
Nandigram Violence, which occurred in West Bengal State in 2007, during which
police shot a number of residents who were protesting against the land acquisition.
More recently, police confronted residents who lost their land and other protesters
demonstrating against construction, in Jaitapur this April, where the worlds biggest
nuclear power plant is planned to be constructed, and one resident lost his life. In May,
the state government confronted farmers over land acquisition for constructing
highways in Noida (Bhatta Parsaul Village) and four farmers were reported dead. In
contrast, after economic liberalization, firstly, there has been a growing sense of
distrust about the idea that land acquisition is being forced in the interests of a few
private companies and in the interests of corrupt central and state governments, in lieu
of sacrifices made by many residents and farmers. Secondly, farmers and residents
who surrendered their land have very little chance of being employed in the public
sector. This is partly because of policy changes triggered by the economic
liberalization of 1991, as the role of the public sector in economic development was
significantly lessened since then. Therefore, in general, people are increasingly
disinclined to lose their livelihoods to land acquisition. Thirdly, although land
acquisition issues were basically considered as a matter of property rights (Article
300A of the Constitution), they are also being understood as an issue of right to life
(Article 21 of the Constitution), as broadly interpreted and recognized by the Supreme
Court from the 1980s, on the grounds that residents would lose their livelihoods and
social ties in the case of large-scale land acquisitions. In other words, there has been a
change in societys awareness of rights. Fourthly, as interstate competition to attract
private investment has been intensifying since economic liberalization, state
governments increasingly take hasty and forcible procedures for land acquisition. This
may also contribute to the increase in the number of confrontations over land. In every
case, Land acquisition must take place in a manner that fully protects the interests of
land owners and also of those whose livelihoods depend on the land being acquired

Recommendation

Land is not an item of property but is a productive asset. The government should treat
land as property before deciding compensation. A mans livelihood is linked with his
dignity. Snatching livelihood from a man means snatching from him his right to
livelihood which is linked with his dignity. A farmer is emotionally attached with his
land. Not only farmer but entire village depending on his employment unit. Whole
village deserts with the desertion of farmers. The Acquisition takes place at the cost of
their livelihood. Normally farmer knows no profession other than agriculture, nor he
knows money management. So, after few years of land acquisition, land owner
(farmer) becomes landless laborers. Therefore, farmers rehabilitation should precede
acquisition. 2. Alternative options:- More options kept for compensation and
rehabilitation and project effected person be given right to negotiation a) Land be
taken on lease, farmers ownership right remain infact on land he should be given
monthly rent a equivalent to interest on land price and it may increase on year to year
basis under rent laws. b) The farmers should be given cultivable land at other places in
exchange of framers cultivable land and he should be given dividend out of future
projects. c) On acquiring residential land of village for a project, better residence be
provided to affected persons. d) Economic status should be studied along with social
status of famer so that people may not suffer economic injustice they should be placed
in better economic position.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Constitution of India

2. Legislation:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Land Acquisition Compensation, Rehabilitation & Resettlement, 2013

Transfer of Property Act, 1882

West Bengal Revenue Sales (W.B. Amendment) Act, 1950

3. Books:

1. Transfer of Property Act 1882, by Vs Sohoni; S V; Sohoni .2nd Edition

2. Goyle`s a Commentary on the Transfer of Property Act, by M R Mallick .5th Edition

3. Transfer of Property Act, by G C V Subbarao, 3rd Edition

4. Transfer of property, by R.K.Sinha