BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORS versus NISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS. on 12 October 2022

360

[2022] 17 S.C.R.

ABHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORS.

v.

NISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 6781-6783 of 2022)

BOCTOBER 12, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in LandAcquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Applicabilityof – Land in question was sought to be acquired under the J&KCLand Acquisition Act, 1990 – Landowners filed the writ petitionbefore the High Court challenging the land acquisition proceedingsinitiated under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 – During thependency of the writ petition, the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990came to be repealed – Original writ petitioners-landowners submittedDthat neither the possession of the land in question nor the awardhas been declared under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 –Thus, the landowners will be entitled to compensation of acquiredland in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and ResettlementAct, 2013 – High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed toEdetermine the compensation of the acquired lands in accordancewith the s.24 (1) of the Act of 2013 – Appellants submitted beforethe Supreme Court, that the High Court has erred and in view ofClause 2(13) of the J&K Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties)Order, 2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, theFrights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued orincurred under any law so repealed and that any investigation, legalproceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued and enforcedas if J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 has not been passed – Section24(1) of the Act of 2013 will not be applicable – Held: Section24(1) of the Act, 2013 speaks about the land acquisition proceedingsGinitiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in the presentcase, the land in question have been acquired as per the provisionprovided under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 – The case ofthe landowners that as the provisions of the J&K State Act of 1990are pari materia to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , the provisionsHunder Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013 will be applicable, cannot be accepted – The language of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 is veryclear and unambiguous and it talks about the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 only and does not speak about any other pari materiaprovision of different statutes – High Court has committed a seriouserror in directing to pay compensation under the Act of 2013 –Therefore, the impugned common judgment and order of the HighCourt is quashed – Accordingly, all the writ petitions are remittedback to the High Court to decide in accordance with the law andon its own merit – However, the issue with respect to the applicabilityof the Act of 2013 is concluded.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. On fair reading of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act,2013, it provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Act,2013, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where no award under Section11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, allprovisions of Act, 2013 relating to the determination of thecompensation shall apply. Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 speaksabout the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the LandAcquisition Act, 1894. In the present case, the lands in questionhave been acquired under the provisions of the State LandAcquisition Act, 1990. Therefore, the acquisition of the lands inquestion is not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It cannotbe disputed that prior to the enactment of the Jammu & KashmirReorganization Act, 2019 and promulgation of the Jammu &Kashmir (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 was not applicable at all so as far as theState of Jammu & Kashmir is concerned. It is only on theenactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019,Act, 2013 shall be made applicable. It is the case on behalf of theoriginal writ petitioners that as the provisions of the State Act of1990 are pari materia to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 andtherefore, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable.The aforesaid cannot be accepted. The language of Section24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 is very clear and unambiguous. It talksabout the land acquisition under the provisions of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 only and it does not speak about any otherpari materia provision of different statutes. [Para 5.1][369-F-H;370-A-C]

AB

C

D

EF

GH

A2. At this stage the decision of this Court in the case ofBangalore Development Authority & Anr. is required to be referredto. In the said decision it is specifically observed and held thatthe Act, 2013 repeals only the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 andnot any other Central or State enactment dealing with theacquisition and therefore, what is sought to be saved under theBAct, 2013 is only acquisitions which have been initiated underthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not those acquisitions whichhave been initiated under any other Central or State enactment.In view of the above binding decision, this Court is of the firmview that the provisions of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicableCwith respect to the acquisition under the J & K Act, 1990. [Para5.2][370-C-E; 371-C]

3. Even otherwise considering clause 2(13) of the Order,2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act under whichthe rights, liabilities, privileges, obligations acquired, accrued,Dor incurred under the repealed laws stands saved and would becontinued under those Acts (in the present case the Act, 1990),it is to be noted that Order, 2019 is subsequent to the Act, 2013.Therefore, it is to be presumed that while enacting the Order,2019 and providing Clause 2(13) of the Order, 2019, the legislaturewas conscious of the provisions of the earlier Act (Act, 2013).EUnder the circumstances also, with respect to the lands acquiredunder the State Act of 1990, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013shall not be applicable at all. [Para 5.3][371-D-E]

4. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in someof the writ petitions there was an order of status quo may be withFrespect to the possession. It is to be noted that the notificationunder Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the State Actof 1990 was a common notification/declaration. Therefore, therewas impediment on the part of the authority in declaring the award.The original writ petitioners cannot be permitted to take benefitGof the order of status quo obtained by some of the original writpetitioners and thereafter to contend that as the award has notbeen declared they shall be entitled to the enhanced amount ofcompensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. [Para5.4][371-F-H]

H

H

5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated aboveand this Court’s specific finding that with respect to the landsacquired under the provisions of the J & K Act, 1990 Section24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable and even otherwiseas observed hereinabove on merits also as the award could notbe declared due to the pendency of the writ petitions before theHigh Court and the order of status quo, the High Court hascommitted a serious error in directing the appellants to pay theamount of compensation under the Act, 2013. To that extent theimpugned common judgment and order passed by the High Courtis unsustainable, both on facts as well as on law. [Para 6][374-D-E]

Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. v. The Stateof Karnataka & Ors. [M.A. No. 1614-1616 of 2019 inCivil Appeal Nos. 7661-7663 of 2018] : 2022 (2)SCALE 818; Indore Development Authority v.Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3

SCR 1 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

[2020] 3 SCR 1

relied onPara 8.4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6781-6783 of 2022.

From the Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2021 of the High Courtof Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in OWP 2555 of 2018,WP(C) 192 of 2021 and WP (C) 463 of 2021.

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 6781-6783 of 2022.

Tushar Mehta, SG, K. M. Nataraj, Vikramjit Banerjee, ASGs,Parijat Sinha, Devesh Mishra, Ms. Pallak Bhagat, Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha,Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Ms. Shruti Aggarwal, Ms. JanhviPrakash, Parth Awasthi, Kartik Dey, Advs. for the Appellants.

Sunil Fernandes, Sakal Bhushan, Ms. Nupur Kumar, VasuBhushan, Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Divyansh Tiwari, Ms. Diksha Dadu,Ms. Muskan Surana, Advs. for the Respondents.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Jammu& Kashmir and Ladakh, at Jammu in respective writ petitions preferredBby the private respondents herein – original petitioners whereby theappellants herein – original respondents have been directed to determinethe compensation of the acquired lands in accordance with the provisionsof the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to asC“the Act, 2013”), the appellants herein – original respondents havepreferred present appeals.2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nut-shell are asunder:

2.1 That, the lands in question were sought to be acquired underDthe provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (hereinafterreferred to as “State Act of 1990”). The notification under Section 4 ofthe State Act of 1990 was issued on 15.11.2016. The lands in questionwere sought to be acquired for the appellants – beneficiary. Thatthereafter declaration under Section 6 of the State Act of 1990 wasEissued on 12.11.2018. The land owners – original petitioners filed therespective petitions before the High Court challenging the proceedingsinitiated under the J&K Land Acquisition Act SVT 1990 with the followingprayers: - A.CERTIORARI; so as to quash the proceedings initiated byFrespondents u/s 4,6,9 & 9-A and Section 17 of J & K LandAcquisition Act, SVT 1990 for the acquisition of land forrelocation of petroleum Depots from Channi Himmat nearRailway Station to Villages Pargalta and Khana Chargal,Tehsil and District Jammu.

B.MANDAMUS; so as to command and direct theGrespondents to de-notify the land sought to be acquired invillages Pargalta and Kanna Chargal, Tehsil and DistrictJammu for re-location of Petroleum Depots.

H

C.PROHIBITION; so as to restrain the respondents fromtaking the possession of land falling under various Khasranumbers of aforesaid villages u/s 17 of J&K LandAcquisition Act.

2.2 That, during the pendency of the writ petitions before theHigh Court, the State Act of 1990 came to be repealed. When the aforesaidwrit petitions came up for hearing before the High Court, the learnedCounsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners submittedthat the petitioners would be satisfied, if instead of quashing the landacquisition proceeding, determination of compensation is made inaccordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, 2013.

2.3 It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners beforethe High Court that as neither the possession of the lands in questionhave been taken over nor the award has been declared even under theState Act of 1990, the original writ petitioners shall be entitled tocompensation of acquired land in accordance with the provisions ofSection 24(1) of the Act, 2013.

2.4 The aforesaid prayer was opposed by the appellants on theground that as the acquisition proceedings have been initiated under theState Act of 1990, Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicableat all. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that in view of Section6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with sub-clause (13) of Clause2 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties)Order, 2019 issued vide S.O. No.3912(E) of 2019 dated 30.10.2019 ofthe Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of J & K Affairs) the repealof the Act shall not affect the rights, privileges, obligations or liabilitiesacquired, accrued or incurred under any law so repealed and that anyinvestigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continuedand enforced as if Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 has notbeen passed. Therefore, it was submitted on behalf of the appellantsthat award in respect of the acquisition in question has to be made inaccordance with the provisions of the State Act of 1990 and Section 24of the Act, 2013 would not be applicable.

2.5 By the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench ofthe High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has directed theappellants – original respondents to determine the compensation of theacquired lands in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgmentand order passed by the High Court directing the appellants to determineand pay the compensation of the acquired lands in accordance with theprovisions of the Act, 2013, the original respondents – appellants herein,for whose benefit the lands have been acquired, have preferred thepresent appeals.B

A

3. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing onbehalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the High Court has erred in directing theappellants to determine and pay the compensation under the provisionsof Section 24 of the Act, 2013.C

3.1 It is further submitted that in view of Clause 2(13) of theOrder, 2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the rights,liabilities, and obligations acquired, accrued or incurred under the RepealLaw vis. State Act of 1990 stands saved and would continue under thesaid Act.D

3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Solicitor Generalappearing on behalf of the appellants that even otherwise consideringSection 24(1) of the Act, 2013, with respect to the acquisition under theState Act of 1990, Act, 2013 shall not be applicable at all. It is submittedthat Section 24 of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable only in a case whereEthe acquisition under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 havebeen initiated. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision of this Court inthe case of Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. vs. The Stateof Karnataka & Ors. rendered in M.A. No.1614-1616 of 2019 in M.A.No.1346-1348 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.7661-7663 of 2018.F

3.3 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Solicitor Generalappearing on behalf of the appellants that even otherwise the High Courthas erred in holding that as the award was not declared and the possessionwas not taken over, Section 24 of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable.

3.4 It is further submitted that the High Court has failed toGappreciate that the award could not be passed on account of stay ordergranted by the High Court. It is submitted that therefore non-passing ofthe award which was due to the stay granted by the High Court cannotbe a ground to apply Section 24 of the Act, 2013.

Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the present H

appeals.

4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by learned CounselSunil Fernandes appearing on behalf of the respondents herein – originalwrit petitioners.

4.1 It is submitted that in the present case, as neither the possessionof the lands in question have been taken over nor the compensation hasbeen paid as the award was not declared, no error has been committedby the High Court in directing to pay the compensation under the Act,2013.

4.2 It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing onbehalf of the original writ petitioners that in the present case neitherClause 2(13) of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization (Removal ofDifficulties) Order, 2019 nor section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897shall be applicable.

4.3 It is submitted that reliance placed by the appellants on thedecision of this Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority& Anr. (Supra)is wholly misconceived, as the same shall not apply tothe facts of the instant case. It is submitted that in the said judgment itwas held that the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would notaffect / lapse the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the BangaloreDevelopment Act, 1976, inasmuch as the provisions of the former Acthad been ‘incorporated’ into the latter Act and therefore, had independentexistence. It is submitted that in the said decision the view taken by thisCourt was on the premise that since the governing statute, i.e., theBangalore Development Act, 1976 had not been repealed, there was nooccasion of applicability of the Act, 2013. It is submitted that in thepresent case, J & K Act which was pari materia to the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 stands repealed and Act, 2013 has come into force with respectto the J & K with effect from 31.10.2019 on enactment of the Jammu &Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019.

4.4 It is further submitted that in view of the plain language impliedin Section 24 of the Act, 2013 i.e., if at the time of commencement of theAct, 2013, no award has been made under the old Act, then all provisionsunder the new Act (Act, 2013) relating to determination of compensationshall apply. It is submitted that therefore the intention of the legislatureto ensure that the proceedings under the old Act did not lapse merelydue to the coming into force of the new Act. However, at the same time, A

B

C

D

E

F

GH

A

B

C

D

E

F

GH

Athe intention is to give benefit of the liberal provisions of the Act, 2013 tothe land owners as well. It is submitted that therefore the High Courthas rightly held that in case an award has been made under the J&KAct before its repeal, then the right of compensation of the land ownerswould certainly have been determined in accordance with the J & KAct only. However, where no award has been passed under the J & KBAct before its repeal and consequently no right to compensation hadbeen matured, neither clause 2(13) of the Jammu and KashmirReorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 nor Section 6 ofthe General Clauses Act shall be employed to nullify the express provisioncontained in Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 insofar as it provides thatCwhere no award is passed under the old / repealed Act, the provisions ofenhanced compensation under the Act, 2013 would apply while notaffecting the land acquisition proceedings under the old / repealed lawas such.

4.5 Now, so far as non-passing of the award on account of theDstay order dated 14.12.2018 is concerned, it is submitted that as such theorder dated 14.12.2018 was only directing the parties to maintain statusquo with regard to the possession and the High Court did not pass anyinterim order restraining the authorities from declaring the award. It issubmitted that even the order of status quo was in some of the writpetitions and did not extend to other lands. It is submitted that despite theEsame, no award was passed.

4.6 In the alternative it is submitted by the learned Counselappearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners that before the HighCourt the land acquisition proceedings were challenged on number ofgrounds and to pay the enhanced amount of compensation under SectionF24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 was an alternative prayer due to non-declarationof the award under Section 11 of the State Act of 1990. It is submittedthat in view of the alternative relief prayed for by the original writpetitioners, the High Court did not go into the merits of the submissionsof the original writ petitioners with respect to quashing of the landGacquisition proceedings and therefore, to that extent the issue is yet tobe considered. It is submitted that in case this Court takes the view thatthe provisions of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable and that the originalland owners are not entitled to enhanced compensation under Section24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013, in that case, the matters may be remanded to the High Court to decide the writ petitions on other grounds.

5. We have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor Generalappearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Sunil Fernandes, learnedCounsel appearing on behalf of the respondents herein – original writpetitioners.

5.1 Having gone through the impugned common judgment andorder passed by the High Court, the High Court has directed the appellantsherein to determine and pay to the original owners the compensationunder the Act, 2013 on the ground that no award under the State Act of1990 has been published and/or declared. While passing the impugnedcommon judgment and order, the High Court has relied upon Section24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013. Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 reads asunder:

“24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shallbe deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any caseof land acquisition proceedings initiated under the LandAcquisition Act, 1894,- (a) where no award under section 11 of the said LandAcquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of thisAct relating to the determination of compensation shall apply;or (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made,then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions ofthe said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not beenrepealed.”

On fair reading of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013, it providesthat notwithstanding anything contained in Act, 2013, in any case of landacquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act hasbeen made, then, all provisions of Act, 2013 relating to the determinationof the compensation shall apply. Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 speaksabout the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894. In the present case, the lands in question have been acquiredunder the provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990. Therefore,the acquisition of the lands in question is not under the Land Acquisition A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAct, 1894. It cannot be disputed that prior to the enactment of the Jammu& Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 and promulgation of the Jammu &Kashmir (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894 was not applicable at all so as far as the State of Jammu &Kashmir is concerned. It is only on the enactment of the Jammu &Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, Act, 2013 shall be made applicable.BIt is the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that as the provisionsof the State Act of 1990 are pari materia to the Land Acquisition Act,1894 and therefore, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable.The aforesaid cannot be accepted. The language of Section 24(1)(a) ofthe Act, 2013 is very clear and unambiguous. It talks about the landCacquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 onlyand it does not speak about any other pari materia provision of differentstatutes.

5.2 At this stage the decision of this Court in the case of BangaloreDevelopment Authority & Anr. (Supra)is required to be referred to. InDthe said decision it is specifically observed and held that the Act, 2013repeals only the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not any other Central orState enactment dealing with the acquisition and therefore, what is soughtto be saved under the Act, 2013 is only acquisitions which have beeninitiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not those acquisitionswhich have been initiated under any other Central or State enactment.EIn paragraphs 19 and 23, this Court had observed and held as under:

“19. The 2013 Act repeals only the LA Act and not anyother Central or State enactment dealing with acquisition.Therefore, what is sought to be saved under Section 24 of the2013 Act is only acquisitions which had been initiated underFthe LA Act and 13 not those acquisitions which had beeninitiated under any other Central or State enactment. Theexpression contained in Section 24 of the LA Act cannot begiven extensive interpretation by adding words into theprovision, in the absence of the provision itself giving rise toGany such implication. We are of the view that 2013 Act wouldnot regulate the acquisition proceedings made under the BDAAct.

23. In view of the above, the Learned Judge of the HighCourt in Sri Sudhakar Hegde (supra) was not justified inHholding that the provisions of LA Act that are made applicable BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORS.v. NISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

to the BDA Act are in the nature of legislation by reference.The learned Judge has also erred in holding that in view ofthe repeal of LA Act by coming into force of 2013 Act, thecorresponding provisions of 2013 Act would regulateacquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and that this wouldinclude determination of compensation in accordance with2013 Act. It is hereby clarified that since LA Act has beenincorporated into the BDA Act so far as they are applicable,the provisions of 15 2013 Act are not applicable for theacquisitions made under the BDA Act. Therefore, the judgmentof the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Sri SudhakarHegde (supra) and other connected matters is herebyoverruled.”

In view of the above binding decision of this Court, we are of thefirm view that the provisions of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable withrespect to the acquisition under the J & K Act, 1990.

5.3 Even otherwise considering clause 2(13) of the Order, 2019read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act under which the rights,liabilities, privileges, obligations acquired, accrued, or incurred under therepealed laws stands saved and would be continued under those Acts(in the present case the Act, 1990), it is to be noted that Order, 2019 issubsequent to the Act, 2013. Therefore, it is to be presumed that whileenacting the Order, 2019 and providing Clause 2(13) of the Order, 2019,the legislature was conscious of the provisions of the earlier Act (Act,2013). Under the circumstances also, with respect to the lands acquiredunder the State Act of 1990, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall notbe applicable at all.

5.4 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in some of thewrit petitions there was an order of status quo may be with respect tothe possession. It is to be noted that the notification under Section 4 anddeclaration under Section 6 of the State Act of 1990 was a commonnotification / declaration. Therefore, there was impediment on the partof the authority in declaring the award. The original writ petitioners cannotbe permitted to take benefit of the order of status quo obtained by someof the original writ petitioners and thereafter to contend that as the awardhas not been declared they shall be entitled to the enhanced amount ofcompensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. In the case of IndoreDevelopment Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.; (2020) 8 SCC

ABC

D

E

F

GH

A129, it is observed and held by this Court that: -

(i) Lapse of acquisition takes place only in case of defaultby the authorities acquiring the land, not caused by anyother reason or order of the court;

(ii) If it was not possible for the acquiring authorities, for anyBreason not attributable to them or the Government, to takerequisite steps, the period has to be excluded;

(iii) In case the authorities are prevented by the court’s order,obviously, as per the interpretation of the provisions suchperiod has to be excluded; C

(iv) The intent of the Act, 2013 is not to benefit landownersonly. The provisions of Section 24 by itself do not intendto confer benefits on litigating parties as such, while asper Section 114 of the Act, 2013 and Section 6 of theGeneral Clauses Act the case has to be litigated as perDthe provisions of the Act, 1894;

(v) It is not the intendment of the Act, 2013 that those whohave assailed the acquisition process should get benefitsof higher compensation as contemplated under Section24; E

(vi) It is not intended by the provisions that in case, the persons,who have litigated and have obtained interim orders fromthe Civil Courts by filing suits or from the High Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution should have thebenefits of the provisions of the Act, 2013 except to theFextent specifically provided under the Act, 2013;

(vii) In cases where some landowners have chosen to takerecourse to litigation and have obtained interim ordersrestraining taking of possession or orders of status quo,as a matter of practical reality it is not possible for theGauthorities or the Government to take possession or tomake payment of compensation to the landowners. Inseveral instances, such interim orders also have impededthe making of an award;

(viii) The litigation initiated by the landowners has to be decided H

on its own merits and the benefits of Section 24(2) shouldnot be available to the litigants in a straightjacket manner.In case there is no interim order, they can get the benefitsthey are entitled to, not otherwise. Delays and dilatorytactics and sometimes wholly frivolous pleas cannot resultin benefitting the landowners under sub-section (1) ofSection 24 of the Act, 2013; A

B

(ix) Any type of order passed by this Court would inhibit actionon the part of the authorities to proceed further, when achallenge to acquisition is pending;

(x) Interim order of stay granted in one of the matters of thelandowners would cause a complete restraint on theauthorities to proceed further to issue declaration; C

(xi) When the authorities are disabled from performing dutiesdue to impossibility, it would be a sufficient excuse forthem to save them from rigour of provisions of SectionD24. A litigant may have a good or a bad cause, be right orwrong. But he cannot be permitted to take advantage ofa situation created by him by way of an interim orderpassed in his favour by the Court at his instance. Althoughprovision of Section 24 does not discriminate betweenlandowners, who are litigants or non-litigants and treatEthem differently with respect to the same acquisition, it isnecessary to view all of them from the stand point of theintention of the Parliament. Otherwise, anomalous resultsmay occur and provisions may become discriminatory initself;F

D

F

(xii) The law does not expect the performance of theimpossible;

(xiii) An act of the court shall prejudice no man;

(xiv) When there is a disability to perform a part of the law,Gsuch a charge has to be excused. When performance ofthe formalities prescribed by a statute is renderedimpossible by circumstances over which the personsconcerned have no control, it has to be taken as a validexcuse; H

(xv) The Court can under its inherent jurisdiction ex debito Ajustitiae has a duty to mitigate the damage suffered bythe defendants by the act of the Court;

(xvi) No person can suffer from the act of Court and an unfairadvantage of the interim order must be neutralised;

(xvii) No party can be permitted to take shelter under the coverof Court’s order to put the other party in a disadvantageousposition; B

(xviii) If one has enjoyed under the Court’s cover, that periodcannot be included towards inaction of the authorities totake requisite steps under Section 24 as the StateCauthorities would have acted and passed an awarddetermining compensation but for the Court’s order.

Therefore also, the original writ petitioners – land owners shallnot be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation under Section24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that as the award has not beenDdeclared they shall be entitled to compensation under the Act, 2013.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and ourspecific finding that with respect to the lands acquired under the provisionsof the J & K Act, 1990 Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall not beapplicable and even otherwise as observed hereinabove on merits alsoEas the award could not be declared due to the pendency of the writpetitions before the High Court and the order of status quo, the HighCourt has committed a serious error in directing the appellants to paythe amount of compensation under the Act, 2013. To that extent theimpugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court isunsustainable, both on facts as well as on law.F

6.1 However, at the same time, as it is reported that the acquisitionproceedings were challenged on other grounds also and the prayer topay the compensation under the Act, 2013 was an alternative prayer,which has been granted by the High Court and therefore, the High Courtdid not go into the merits of the submissions made on behalf of theGoriginal land owners with respect to the quashing of the land acquisitionproceedings on other grounds, the matters are to be remanded to theHigh Court to decide the writ petitions afresh in accordance with lawand on its own merits on the other grounds if any, challenging the landacquisition proceedings under the State Act of 1990.

H

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all theseappeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and order dated06.10.2021 passed by the High Court allowing the writ petitions anddirecting the appellants to pay to the original writ petitioners / originalland owners the compensation as per the Act, 2013 is hereby quashedand set aside. As the High Court has not decided the writ petitions onmerits on other grounds with respect to quashing of the land acquisitionproceedings, all the writ petitions are remitted back to the High Court todecide and dispose of the said writ petitions afresh in accordance withlaw and on its own merits so far as other grounds with respect to thequashing of the land acquisition proceedings, which shall be dealt withby the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits.However, the issue with respect to the applicability of the Act, 2013 isconcluded and shall not be reopened by the High Court and it is observedand clarified that the High Court shall consider on merits other submissions,if any raised in the writ petitions, with respect to quashing of the landacquisition proceedings only.

Present appeals are allowed accordingly to the aforesaid extent.In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as tocosts.

Ankit Gyan and Anurag Bhaskar(Assisted by : Ajay, LCRA)

Appeals allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H