SC okays revocation clause in land acquisition law

Ruling upholds cancellation where acquisition amount not accepted for 5 years or more, if the dispute was in court all along, with a rider

A Supreme Court order on the new land acquisition law will have a long-term effect on those whose land has been acquired but who have not accepted compensation and gone to court, and where the matter is still pending.

The order relates to compensation under Clause 24 or the ‘retrospective’ clause for land acquired by private parties or the government. The new law -- the formal name is Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -- says if for five years after acquisition the owners of the land refused to accept compensation, the acquisition could be set aside.

In pursuance of this, 18 appeals were filed before the SC, invoking application of the clause. In all of these, five or more years had passed since the acquisition award under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the applicants/petitioners had refused to accept the compensation. Given the new rights in the legislation, allowing pending litigation to be reviewed and retrospectively annulled, these parties approached the SC.

In this litigation, the acquiring authority (Pune Municipal Corporation) argued it had deposited the amount in the state government treasury, in fulfilment of its obligations on compensation. This has been the standard procedure in acquiring land when the owners refuse to part with it.

Last Friday, the SC ordered that in accordance with the new law, compensation would only be deemed to have been paid if it had been deposited with a court dealing with the matter and after having been offered to the individual concerned. In this case, the compensation had only been deposited in the treasury.

As a result, compensation could not be deemed to have been paid and the acquisition was considered to have lapsed, the order said. It made no comment on the fairness or otherwise of the amount of compensation; only, that the process to acquire land had not been followed. It merely said the compensation was inadequate because it did not include interest that had accrued while the compensation was lodged in the government treasury.

The implications are multifarious. If structures have been built on the acquired land, whose property will these be? How will these be valued? Will the land need to be returned or will arbitration have to take place? This order will mean many more cases of acquisition are likely to be reopened through the courts.

The Union ministry of rural development says the SC order not only validates the legality of the new Act and the retrospective clause but provides clarity on the way forward. “I am certain many displaced families will benefit as a result of this solid precedent,” said minister Jairam Ramesh.

LAW OF THE LAND

• The new law says if for five years after acquisition, the owners of the land don’t accept compensation, the acquisition could be set aside
• 18 appeals were filed before the SC, invoking application of the Clause 24, or the ‘retrospective’ clause, for land acquired by private parties or the govt
• The acquiring authority (Pune Municipal Corporation) said it had deposited the amount in the state government treasury, in fulfilment of its obligations on compensation
• The order said since the compensation was deposited in the treasury and not a court concerned, it would not be deemed to have been paid and the acquisition was considered to have lapsed
• The order  made no comment on the fairness or of the amount of compensation; only, that the process to acquire land had not been followed
• The compensation was inadequate because it did not include interest that had accrued while it was lodged in the treasury