The Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
RFCTLAR&R ACT, 2013
LAND ACQUISITION
Dr. Arvind Nath Tripathi
DSNLU

09/28/2022 1
 Salient features of RFCTLAR&R Act 2013
 First time provision of Social Impact Assessment Study for proposed
projects prior to Preliminary Notification.
 Recognize non owners as Affected Families like Share Croppers,
Tenants and Agricultural Labourers
 A mode of Acquisition requiring consent of displaced persons ( for
private companies 80% and for PPP projects 70%)
 Statutory rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements for the
project affected families
 Restricted the grounds on which land may be acquired under the
urgency clause
 Recognition of principle of Social cost minimisation
 Special Provision for food security U/S 10 of the Act.
 Return of land to Original Owners as per section 101 of the Act.
09/28/2022 2
The RFCTLARR Act-2013: Some Reflections

• After a long and adventurous journey in which

series of deliberations were held at various levels,
and incorporating various concerns of diverse
stakeholders, the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act-2013 was enacted by
the Parliament. The Act has come into effect from
1st January, 2014. There have been mixed reactions
to the Act as was expected from such a path
breaking legislation.
09/28/2022 3
The RFCTLARR Act-2013: Some Reflections
• Issues with LAA, 1894: The objections/protests against the old Act
centered on the following issues:
• 1. There was no provision for consultations with stakeholders during
the land acquisition process. The concerns of the land owners were
hence not taken on board.
• 2. Land could be acquired for any ‘public purpose’ and the term was not
defined comprehensively.
• 3. The urgency provision of the Act was used rampantly for any purpose
and the land owners had to vacate the land immediately as per its
provisions.
• 4. The persons who were dependent on the land being acquired but did
not own it were completely left out of the process of land acquisition
and did not get any benefit.

09/28/2022 4
The RFCTLARR Act-2013: Some Reflections
• 5. The land was acquired for one purpose and utilised for another. Further, if
the acquired land changed hands from one concern/owner to another at a
large consideration, the benefit was cornered by the entity that transferred
it, without sharing it with the land owners from whom the land was
acquired.
• 6. The land owners did not get a fair price for the lands which were acquired.
This was due to the lack of an objective formula in the Act. The price
determination was therefore left at the discretion of the Collector.
• 7. The lands were acquired and the project took off on the acquired land but
the owners did not get compensation for their land for years for one reason
or another. The cases related to land acquisition continued in civil courts for
years.
• 8. There was no provision of R & R in the Act. In the absence of the
legislation, this was the mostly neglected part (despite the NPRR, 2007).

09/28/2022 5
The RFCTLARR Act-2013: Some Reflections

• The aforesaid issues led to agitations in one form or

another against various land acquisition
proceedings across the country, also resulting in
police firing and causalities. The overall result was
long delays in implementation of projects, court
cases and in some cases shifting of projects from
one state to another. Singur in West Bengal, POSCO
in Odisha and Noida in Uttar Pradesh are few
examples of projects that gained national attention.

09/28/2022 6
Features of the RFCTLARR Act-2013
• After a long drawn consultation process, the
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 was passed by the Parliament
in the year 2013 which endeavors to address all the
issues listed above. Its main features are as follows:
• 1. The Act provides for a mandatory SIA study along
with Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP). The
SIMP, listing the ameliorative measures to address
the adverse impact of the project has to be
prepared, in all cases of land acquisition.

09/28/2022 7
The RFCTLARR Act-2013: Some Reflections
• 2. To ensure transparency and participation, the Act
provides for mandatory consent of at least eighty/seventy
percent of the land owners in the cases of land acquisition
for private/PPP projects. In the Scheduled Areas, consent
of the Gram Sabhas/Panchayats/Autonomous District
Councils is mandatory in all cases of land acquisition.
• 3. The term “Affected Family” has been defined
comprehensively to ensure compensation to those also
who may not lose land in the acquisition process but who
stand to lose their livelihood due to land acquisition.

09/28/2022 8
The RFCTLARR Act-2013: Some Reflections

• 4. The Act provides for a clear scientific

formula prescribed for calculation of the
market value of the land being acquired. The
market value has to be multiplied by a factor
prescribed in First Schedule. Further, solatium
has been increased from 30 percent to 100
percent.

09/28/2022 9
The RFCTLARR Act-2013: Some Reflections
• 5. The comprehensive R&R benefits for the affected
families has been provided for in the Second Schedule of
the Act.
• 6.The Act provides for mandatory list of
amenities/facilities to be developed at the rehabilitation
site where the displaced families are to be settled
(provided for in the Third Schedule of the Act).
• 7. To curb the misuse of the urgency provision, the
conditions for its imposition has been limited to
acquisition of land for defence of India, national security
or for any emergency arising out of natural calamities
only.
09/28/2022 10
The RFCTLARR Act-2013: Some Reflections

• 8. To ensure time bound disposal of disputes related to

LARR, the Act mandates the establishment of the Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement (LARR)
Authority.
• 9. To ensure time bound utilisation of the land, the Act
provides that if any land or part thereof acquired (under
the Act) remains unutilised for a period of five years
from the date of taking of the possession, the same shall
have to be returned to the Land Bank/original land
owners as specified by the appropriate government.

09/28/2022 11
 What is Social Impact Assessment ?

• SIA- Social Impact Assessment- is a field of research and

practice which involves a body of knowledge, techniques,
and values for analyzing, monitoring and managing the
intended and unintended social consequences, both
positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies,
programs, plans, projects) and any social change
processes invoked by those interventions.SIA alerts the
planners and programme executors of the likely benefits
and costs of a proposed project, which may be social,
cultural, and/or economic and such others.

09/28/2022 12
 Relevance of Social Impact Assessment

• SIA, enshrined in Sec 4(1) to Sec. 9 forms an integral part

of land acquisition under this act.SIA study helps make
informed decision regarding the problems that the
displacement will cause. SIA helps enhance the project
benefits to poor and vulnerable people while minimizing
or mitigating concerns, risks and adverse impacts through
a participatory, informed and transparent process
involving all stakeholders. The SIA study can even
question the justification provided for public purpose,
suggest alternative mechanism and can even recommend
dropping the whole acquisition process.

09/28/2022 13
 Relevance of Social Impact Assessment
• The comprehensive R&R benefits for the affected families has
been provided for in the Second Schedule of the Act.
• The Act provides for mandatory list of amenities/facilities to
be developed at the rehabilitation site where the displaced
families are to be settled (provided for in the Third Schedule
of the Act).
• To curb the misuse of the urgency provision, the conditions
for its imposition has been limited to acquisition of land for
defense of India, national security or for any emergency
arising out of natural calamities only.
• To ensure time bound disposal of disputes related to LARR,
the Act mandates the establishment of the Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation & Resettlement (LARR) Authority.
09/28/2022 14
 Relevance of Social Impact Assessment

• Reflections on Common Apprehensions: The

aforesaid Act has been generally well received
in the country by a cross section of
stakeholders. However, there are also
apprehensions with regard to delay in
acquisition proceedings and cost
appreciation of the projects, with the latter
being most vigorously raised by the reality
sector.
09/28/2022 15
 Relevance of Social Impact Assessment

• According to the Right to Fair Compensation

and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR)
Act, 2013, it is mandatory to conduct a Social
Impact Assessment (SIA) and prepare a Social
Impact Management Plan (SMP) for acquisition
of land by government for its own use, hold
and control or by public-private partnership or
by private acquisition for public purposes.
09/28/2022 16
 Relevance of Social Impact Assessment

• The overall objective of the Act is to make the land acquisition process
participatory, humane, informed and transparent. The Act also stipulates that
an SIA study for land acquisition shall demonstrate or justify the following:
• a) That the land to be acquired serves a public purpose

• b) That the extent of the land to be acquired for public purpose is the absolute
bare minimum
• c) Whether land acquisition at the alternative place has been considered and
not found feasible
• d) Whether overall potential benefits outweigh the social impacts and
assessment costs
• e) Inventory of movable and immovable properties likely to be impacted
• f) Number of affected families and number of families likely to be displaced

09/28/2022 17
 Relevance of Social Impact Assessment

• The role of the SIA is as an instrument that helps

assess and determine the implications of land
acquisition on the affected community and
people. SIA minimizes the risks involved in
displacement, rehabilitation, compensation and
resettlement. It also guides the land acquiring
agency to plan in an informal manner, thus saving
cost, and in timely completion of the projects,
therefore reducing the risks involved in delays.

09/28/2022 18
 Relevance of Social Impact Assessment

• Advantages:
• The main advantages of doing a systematic SIA include the following:
• • Identifying Affected Groups: SIA helps in identifying people and groups
who are affected by the project;
• • Free and Fair information sharing : SIA should ensure exchange of free
and fair information.;
• • Avoiding Adverse Impacts: SIA provides the basis for preparing
mitigation measures to avoid, reduce or manage adverse impacts;
• • Enhancing Positive Impacts: SIA preparation also helps identify
measures to maximize/share project benefits;
• • Reducing Costs: Addressing social impacts at an early stage helps to
avoid costly errors in future.

09/28/2022 19
 Important Provisions of the RFCTLAR&R Act 2013
Activities Provision under Timeline
Section
Preparation of SIA Section 4 Within 6 months from Notification
Preliminary Notification Section 11 Within 1 year from submission of Expert
Group Report and Specific proposal by
Collector
Declaration of Notification Section 19 Within 1 Year from Notification
Notice to Persons interested Section 21 Within 6 months
Enquiry and Award Section 23
Power to take Possession Section 38 Within 6 months after the payment of
full compensation and R&R
entitlements
Special Provisions for SCs and STs Section 41
Reference to LARR Authority Section 64 With a period of 30 days from the date
of receipt of application by the Collector

Return of land to Land Section 101 If the land is unutilized for a period of 5
Bank/Original Owners year s from the date of taking over
09/28/2022 possession 20
 Difference between Old and New Act
OLD ACT NEW ACT
No detailed procedure for First Schedule contains the details
calculation of compensation. Only of calculation of compensation
market value taken into account.

No separate chapter on R&R A separate Chapter V on R&R. It

provides Rehabilitation and
Resettlement entitlements to the
displaced and affected persons

No separate provision for SCs and Section 41 says for Special

STs provision for SCs and STs

No such special Provision for Provision for ensuring food

ensuring food security security, U/S 10 of the Act.

09/28/2022 21
 Difference between Old and New Act
OLD ACT NEW ACT
No concept of SIA Study Under Section 4 SIA study is
mandatory

Separate provision for private No such separate provision for

companies (Chapter VII) private companies. Concept of
Direct purchase under Section 46
and Sub section 3 of Section 2 of
the Act.

The procedure for acquisition After a detail SIA study and

involves sending of notification by Expert Group Appraisal Collector
the District Collector and invitation can send preliminary notification
of objection ( Section 4 & Section 5) under Section 11

09/28/2022 22
Step by Step Procedure followed for Land Acquisition
as per RFCTLAR&R Act , 2013
Requisitioning Authority submit Proposal for Land Acquisition
to Collector

Collector sends Proposal for SIA Study

the SIA Study and intimate to Collector

Government for Notification U/S 4 of the Act to conduct SIA

study

SIA study publication in the locality

09/28/2022 23
 Cont….
Formation of Expert group by Collector and Conducting of
Gram Sabha

Collector to submit Specific proposal and Expert Group

Recommendation to Govt.

Notification by the Government U/S 8(2) and publication in

the locality

Preliminary Notification U/S 11(1) of the Act for Acquisition

Objection hearing U/S 15 of the Act

Declaration U/S 19(1), after verifying the Sanction Estimate,

Fund certificate, R&R Certificate and no objection certificate
Notice to Awardees U/S -21 and Payment of compensation
U/S 23 of the Act
Power to take possession U/S 38 of the Act
09/28/2022 24
 Challenges
 Timely completion of SIA study.
 Conducting Gram Sabha and getting people consent.
 Calculation of Market Value of land.
 Identifying the Affected Families.
 Litigation due to inheritance.
 Multiple sales which have not been properly recorded.
 Tough Resettlement and Rehabilitation laws.
 More need of land for Make In India and Smart Cities.
 Land
09/28/2022
Record updation. 25
 Way Ahead
• Complete digitization and real time updation of land
records.

• Using of latest technology in revenue offices for land record

updation.

• Assurance of stable high speed internet connectivity for

real time land records updation.

• Rent Abatement and Revision of Records in a time bound

manner

• Effective R&R Mechanism

09/28/2022 26
 Following are the core issues that could not be answered
under Land acquisition Act of 1894

 Understanding of Public Purpose and its frequent application

including for Land Acquisition for private projects
 Applicability of Emergency clause
 Consent of People
 Calculation of Fair compensation for the land and the fixed assets
over it
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement of displaced families
 Addressing Livelihood issu es and loss Social and Economic
of disjoint due to displacement
 Timely payment of compensation
 Amicably address of the family share
 issues
Acceptable Rehab Colony with all legal rights
 Stake Holders Management
 Creating a proper data base to address the grievances

09/28/2022 27
 Status of RFCTLARR Act. 2013
 The bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in India on 7 September 2011
 Out of the 235 members who voted on the bill, 216 backed it while 19
voted against it
 Lok Sabha on 29th August 2013 passed the Bill to replace the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 as “The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Bill 2012” (Here we say “ RFCTLARR Act”)
 on 4 September 2013 the bill was passed in Rajya Sabha
 It has got presidential Accent on 26th September
 MoRD is on job to frame the rules there under. Draft Rule are
placed in website for views of Public and comment
 The New Act of 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) is made effective
from
01.01.2014
 All state are asked to fram e ru les there under follow ing
the provisions of Sec 109 of the Act
09/28/2022 28
 Contents of RFCTLARR, 2013 in brief
 The Act has 13 no of Chapters and 114 no of Sections
 Chapter I- PRELIMINARY – SHORT TITLE , EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT
.
 Chapter II- DETERMINATION OF SOCIAL IMPACT AND PUBLIC PURPOSE
 Chapter III- SPECIAL PROVISION TO SAFEGUARD FOOD SECURITY
 Chapter IV- PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION AND ACQUISITION
 Chapter V- REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT AWARD
 Chapter VI- AND MANNER OF REH ABILITATION AND
PROCEDURE
RESETTLEMENT MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR
 REHABILITATION
Chapter VII- AND RESETTLEMENT
 NATIONAL
Chapter VIII - ESTABLISHMENT OF LAND
ACQUISITION. REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
AUTHORITY
 Chapter IX- APPORTIONMENT OF COMPENSATION
 Chapter X- PAYMENT
 Chapter XI- TEMPORARY OCCUPATION OF LAND
 Chapter XII - OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
 Chapter XIII- MISCELLANEOUS

09/28/2022 29
 IMPACT OF RFCTLARR ACT

• The New Act 2013 is a new legislation and repeals the

LA Act, 1894.
• SIA and R and R are now integral part of the
acquisition.
land
• Transparency & Participatory approach at various stages
of the land acquisition, R & R processes.
• To ensure sustainable livelihood of the affected families.
• Consent inbuilt to ensure participation of the
affected families.
• Option of the lease to be explored and surrender of land
possible, if not used.
• Dedicated Authority for disposal of disputes.
• No displacement before rehabilitation.

09/28/2022 30
 IMPORTANT PROVISIONS IN THE NEW ACT COMPARE
TO OLD ACT
Provisions Sec .in Ne w Act Remarks
SIA and SIA related studies Sec. 4(1) to Sec. 9 This was not in the old Act.
Special Provision for Safeguard, Sec 10 This was not in the old Act
Food Security
Publication of Sec.11 to Sec.18 It is equivalent to Sec.4 and Sec.
Preliminary notification 5(a) of old Act expect
notification with SIA Report
Publication of declaration and Sec.19 to Sec. 22 This was equivalent to Sec.6(1)
Summary of R&R Scheme of old Act. except R&R
scheme which is a new
concept
Land Acquisition Award Sec. 23 to Sec. 30 This is equivalent to Sec. 11 of
Old Act.
R&R Award Sec. 31 to Sec. 37 As per R&R Policy not included
in Old Act
Power to take possession of land Sec. 38 Equivalent to Sec. 16 of old Act.

09/28/2022 31
 IMPORTANT PROVISIONS IN THE NEW ACT Contd………..

Provisions Sec.in Remarks

Ne w Act
Additional compensation in case of Sec. 39 It is a new provision
multiple displacement
Emergency provisions Sec. 40 Equivalent to Sec. 17 of old Act.
Special provision of SC&STs Sec. 41 to Sec. No such provisions in old Act
42
Procedure and manner of R&R Sec 43 to It is equivalent to the provision of
Sec 47 R&R policy of the state
government and centre. Was not
in the old Act.
State & National Monitoring Sec. 48 to No such provisions in old Act
Committee for R&R Sec 50
Establishment for Land Acquisition Sec. 51 to Similar provisions was their in
and Rehabilitation of the authority Sec 74 Sec. 18 and Sec. 30 in old Act but
not such elaborated as in the new
Act.

09/28/2022 32
 Comparative Timeline as defined in both the Acts
As per RFCTLARR Act 2013 As per LA Act, 1894

SIA Study (4.1) Preliminary Notification (4 .1)

Six Months Two Months

Appraisal by Expert Group SIA Study

Two Months 10 Months

Preliminary Notification (11.1)
Publication Declaration
(6.1)
One year
1 year Months
Publication of Declaration (19.1)
Award by Collector (11.1)
One Year
Awarded of Collector for land 1 years Months
compensation Taken over possession of land (16)
Two Years

Awarded of Collector for

R&R compensation

Taken over possession of land

09/28/2022 33
 Retrospective Effect (Section 24)
• Where award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 has not been declared the LA compensation will jump
to new act.
• Where award under Section 11 of the LA Act, 1894 has been
made 5 years or more before the commencement of this Act
but the physical possession of the land not taken or
compensation not paid –jump to new act.
• If award has been made but compensation case
in m ajority of land holding is not been of
account of beneficiaries then all notified land losers will
deposited in be
entitled to new compensation calculation. the
• If any land Purchased on or after 5th Sept 2011 contrary to
the provisions of sec46(1) or within three years from the
date of commencement of the act i.e 1.1.2014, then 40% of
the compensation paid for such land acquired shall be
shared with the original land owners.
09/28/2022 34
 Retrospective Effect (Section 24)

• To make it simplify ; this retrospective clause can be understood

through the following three points:
• 1) That where award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 has not been declared the case will be followed with new Act i.e.
the compensation will be calculated as per new Act (2013 Act).
• 2) Where award under Section 11 of the LA Act, 1894 has been made
5 years or more before the commencement of this 2013 Act but the
physical possession of the land was not taken or compensation was
not paid, the proposal will be dealt as per new Act.
• 3) If award has been made but compensation in case of majority of
land holding is not been deposited in the account of beneficiaries
then all notified land losers will be entitled to new compensation
calculation.

09/28/2022 35
 Public Purpose
Section Provision in RFCTLARR Act. Provision in the Old Act

Sec. 2(1) • For strategic purpose relating to defence of India or State Police or This is classified for the
Application of the safety of the people public purpose as will be
Act for public • For infrastructure projects defined u/s I to VI of the Act, accepted by collector.
purpose or govt. • Sec. III includes projects for industrial corridors , mining activities ,
use national investment and manufacturing zone.

Sec. 2 (2) The provisions of this Act relating to land acquisition, consent, Land for private companies
Provisions for compensation. rehabilitation and resettlement, shall also apply, when the or PPP projects were
declaring land to be appropriate Government acquires land for the following purposes, namely:- acquired by Govt with
acquired for Private (a) for public private partnership projects, where the ownership of the land notification of Public
Companies continues to vest with the Government, for public purpose as defined in purpose through
sub-section (1); SEC. 2 IDCO/Infrastructure
(b) for private companies for public purpose, as defined in sub- corporations of respective
state govt who have the
section (I):
Provided that in the case of acquisition for- power to acquire land for
(i) private companies, the prior consent of at least eighty per cent. of those Industry/industry related
affected families, as defined in sub-clauses (i) and (v) of clause infrastructure and
(c) of section 3; and becomes automatically
(ii) public private partnership projects, the prior consent of Public Purpose
at least seventy per cent. of those affected families, as defined in sub-clauses
(i) and (v) of clause (c) of section 3,
shall be obtained through a process as may be prescribed
by the appropriate Government

09/28/2022 36
 Provision of Public Consent
(Section 2)

• To ensure transparency and participation, consent

of at least eighty/seventy percent of the land
owners in the cases of land acquisition for
Private/Public Private Partnership Projects
• In Sched uled Areas consent of Gram
the
Sabhas/Panchayats/autonomous district cou ncils
mandatory in all cases of land acquisition
• Consent to be obtained along w ith the p rocess
of SIA study

09/28/2022 37
 Definition of Affected family
(Section 3)
• A family whose land or other immovable
property has been acquired;
• A family which has lost its livelihood;
• A family of Tribes and other traditional forest
dwellers that have lost any of their traditional
rights recognized under the Scheduled Tribes
and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 due to
acquisition of land;
• A member of the family who has been assigned
land by the Govt.
• In Old act Affected family was limited to the land
losers

09/28/2022 38
 Preliminary Steps at 4(1) stage

• To assess the impact of the projects, SIA to be carried

out in all cases of land acquisition in consultation
with Panchayat or Municipal corporation with in six
months
• Social Impact Management Plan (SIMP) to list out
ameliorative measures to address adverse impact
• Summary of SIA Report to be issued along with
preliminary notification under Section 11

09/28/2022 39
 SIA
Assessmen Whether
Extent of Whether
t as to Estimation the extent Study of
lands, public other
whether of affected of land social costs
and private, alternative
the families proposed is of the
houses, sites were
proposed and absolutely project vis-
settlements considered
acquisition families bare s-vis the
and other and found
serves the
public
likely to be
displaced
be affected
A
CPRs likely to
minimum
requireme
not
feasible
benefits of
the project
purpose nt.

Expert Group to Appraise the SIA

2 non-official social scientists,
2 representatives of Panchayat, Gram Sabha,
2 experts on rehabilitation,
1 technical expert in the subject relating to the project.
09/28/2022 40
 Appraisal of SIA

• SIA Report to be evaluated by an independent

multi- disciplinary Expert Group:-
(i) Two non-official social scientists
(ii) Two representatives of local bodies
(iii) two experts on rehabilitation
(iv)A technical expert in the subject relating to project
• To make recommendations within two months
• SIA Report valid for 12 months

09/28/2022 41
 SIA Criteria – Expert Committee
 Critical Assessment of Magnitude of Physical and Economic
Displacement. This may include the number of affected households to be
physically relocated as well as those rendered landless/with marginal
unviable land holdings (marginal with 1 hectare of land holding).

 Critical Evaluation of Social Impact Management Plan and whether the

ameliorative measures suggested will be adequate to effectively mitigate
the adverse impact on individual and community assets, infrastructure
and restoration of livelihood of affected families.

 Critical Assessment of Attitude of the community towards the project and

the reasons for opposition, if any - nature of the project/timing/other
specific characteristics etc - perceptions of the community about social
well-being, neighbourhood cohesion or cultural differences among
members of the community etc.

 Physical cost and benefits easy to arrive at the social costs but intangible
emotional costs would vary depending on the value
judgments/background of the evaluating team

09/28/2022 42
 Minimum Land Acquisition & Minimum
Displacement

• Appropriate Government shall ensure that:-

a) There is a legitimate and bona fide public purpose for the
proposed acquisition
b) The public purpose, in the long term, is in the larger public
interest so as to justify the adverse social impact as
determined by SIA
c) Only the minimum area of land required for the project is
being acquired.
d) There is no unutilized Land that has been previously
acquired in the area
e) The land, if any, acquired earlier and remain unutilized, is
used for such public purpose
• SIA is exempted in case of projects acquiring land with
application of emergency clause

09/28/2022 43
 Special provision to safeguard food security
(Section 10)

• Irrigated multi-cropped land shall not be acquired except

when land acquired does not exceed five percent
(Flexibility to appropriate government) of total irrigated
multi-crop area in that district or State.
• Whenever a multi-crop irrigated land is acquired, an
equivalent area of culturable waste land shall be developed
for agricultural purposes.
• In other cases the acquisition of agricultural land should
not exceed for all projects in a district or State such limits
of the net sown area of that district or State as may be
notified by the appropriate government.
• State to make rule what percentage of Irrigated land
can be acquired in special circumstances.

09/28/2022 44
 Preliminary Notification u/s 11(1)

• Similar to the old Act. A notification relating to the land details to

be acquired with the name of the land owners as well as the
summary of the SIA report, reasons necessitating the
displacement of affected persons is to be published (a) in official
gazette, (b) in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality, at
least one in the regional language , (c) in the panchayat or
municipality, (d) uploaded in the website, (e) in the affected area.
• The cutoff date is the last date of the publication in any of the
system.
• Land transaction is restricted u/s 11(4) and Collector to ensure
updating of the land records within a period of two months u/s
11(5).
• This notification is valid for 12 months.
• In the old Act preliminary notification u/s 4(1) was confined
to publication of the list of the land loser in similar manner as
detailed at (a) to (c).

09/28/2022 45
 Activities during valid period of Notification
u/s 11(1)
• Preliminary survey of land.
• Hearing of objections such as to the area and suitability of land,
justification offered for public purpose, findings of SIA.
• The administrator shall prepare rehabilitation and resettlement
scheme including the rehabilitation colony with details of public
amenities and infrastructure facilities.
• The rehabilitation scheme shall be reviewed by the Collector as well
as by R&R Committee constituted u/s 45.
• The scheme shall be submitted to the Commissioner R&R for approval
of the government.
• After approval, it will be made available in the local language of the
panchayat / municipality and uploaded in the website of the
appropriate government.

09/28/2022 46
 Declaration u/s 19(1)

• Similar to the declaration provisions u/s 6(1) of the old Act.

shall pu blish the d eclaration along with the area id entified for
Government
resettlement site.
• The collector shall publish a summary of the R&R scheme and asked the
requiring body, to d eposit an amount full/part toward s cost of
acquisition of land.
• The old Act was confined to declaration of the land details intended to
be acquired for public purpose as there was no mandatory provision for
Rehab. Colony and Resettlement and Rehabilitation
• The validity of the declaration is 12 months from the date of the
declaration of publication otherwise the entire proceedings will be
lapsed.

09/28/2022 47
 Market Value(Section 26)

• Market value is higher of (a) minimum land value as per

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (b) average sale price for similar type
of land in the vicinity (c) average sale price already paid or
agreed to be paid in private or PPP projects
• Any price paid earlier as compensation for land acquired
under this Act on an earlier occasion not to be taken into
consideration
• Collector to take necessary steps to revise the market value of
the land before initiating acquisition proceedings
• Further, to ensure adequate compensation to the land owners,
the market value calculated shall be multiplied by a factor of
two in the rural area and by a factor of one in the urban area
as specified in the First Schedule.
• The calculation process is detailed in the first schedule.

09/28/2022 48
 THE FIRST SCHEDULE [ 30 (2)]
COMPENSATION FOR LAND OWNERS

Serial Component of compensation Manner of determination of value

No.
under the old
package in respect of land
Act, land
acquired under the Act
compensation
was calculated in
1 2 3 a simple manner
1 Market value of land To be determined as provided under
by taking the
section 26.
average of 3
2
years registration
Factor by which the market 1.00 (One) to 2.00 (Two) based on the
value is to be multiplied in distance of project from urban area, price added with
the case of rural areas as may be notified' by the 30% solatium
appropriate Government. and 12% interest
over it. However,
3 Factor by which the market One the cost of
value is to be multiplied in permanent
the case of urban areas
objects existing
over the land is
4 Value of assets attached to To be determined as provided under
land or building section 29
also finally
added at the
5 Solatium Equivalent to one hundred per
cent. Of the compensation amount of time of making
land mentioned against serial the award
number 1
6 Final award in rural areas {(1x2 )+ 4}+ 100 %
7. Final Award in Urban Area { (1x3)+4}+100%
09/28/2022 49
 Awards towards Compensation and
Resettlement & Rehabilitation
• Sec. 27 empowered Collector to calculate the total compensation,
including the damage of the standing crop and trees, incidental
charges, cost incurred due to severing such land from his other
land.
• Sec. empowers the Collector to pass Resettlement &
30
Rehabilitation Award that includes Resettlement and
Rehabilitation amount, particulars housesite and houses to be
included in case of displacement, after ensuring provisions of
infrastructure amenities in the resettlement area as per the third
schedule of the Act u/s 32.
• In the old Act, there is no provision of making award for
resettlement and rehabilitation nor there is a provision for
compensation double the amount of the original estimate incase
of the double displacement.

09/28/2022 50
 Institutional mechanism for R&R

• Sec. 43—Administrator for Rehabilitation and Resettlement

-Formulation, execution and monitoring of R&R Plan
• Sec. 44—Commissioner for Rehabilitation and Resettlement
-Supervision of formulation, implementation of R&R Plan
and post implementation social audit in consultation with
Gram Sabha
• Sec.45—Rehabilitation and Resettlement Committee at
project level (more than 100 acres) - monitor and review
R&R
• Sec. 48—50 -National Monitoring Committee at central
level & State Monitoring Committee at State level

09/28/2022 51
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Benefits
• Schedule Two of the Act enlists R&R benefits for the affected
families.
• In case of irrigation projects, as far as possible, each affected
family is proposed to be given one acre of land in the
command area. Persons belonging to SC or ST and losing their
land will be provided two and a one-half acres of the land.
• If the land is acquired for urbanization purpose, twenty
percent of the developed land will be reserved and offered to
the land losers.
• Mandatory employment to at least one member per
affected family. If it is not possible, then onetime payment of
rupees five lakhs per affected family or annuity policy that
pays rupees two thousand per month per family for
twenty years.
• Onetime financial assistances like transportation cost, cattle
shed/petty shop costs etc.

09/28/2022 52
 Important R & R Benefits
• Resettlement and Rehabilitation benefits to all affected families (in addition to
compensation)
 R & R Package - Choice of employment/5 lakhs/Rs. 2000 per month for 20 yesr
 One-time Resettlement Allowance: Rs. 50,000/
 Cattle shed/petty shops - Rs. 25,000/
 One time grant to artisan/traders/self employed - Rs. 25,000/
– Fishing rights in reservoir
– Land for land – Irrigation projects (as far as possible) I acre of land (2.5 acres for SCs/STs in
command area
Displaced Families
 Housing in case of displacement – Rural Areas (IAY specifications); Urban areas
(constructed house not less than 50 sq.mts in plinth area/min Rs. 1,50,000)
 Subsistence grant for all displaced families – Rs. 3000 per month for one year
(additional Rs. 50,000/ for SCs/STs).
 Transportation grant for all displaced families - Rs. 50,000/
– All monetary rehabilitation grants and benefits are adjusted based on theConsumer Price
Index.
– Stamp duty/registration to be paid by the requiring body

09/28/2022 53
 Infrastructure Facilities in Resettlement
Areas

• Third Schedule lists amenities/facilities to

be developed in the rural areas.
• These include roads, drainage, sources ofs afe
drinking water for affected families, drinking
water for cattle, grazing land, fair price shops,
Panchayat Ghars, village level post office, Burial
or Crimination Ground, Aanganwadi, community
centres, sub health centres, playground etc.

09/28/2022 54
 Urgency Provision (Section 40)

• LA Act, 1894 empowers the appropriate Government

to acquire land under urgency provision for any
public purpose U/s 17 .
• However, in new Act urgency provision restricted to:
(a) acquisition of land for defence of India; or
(b) national security; or
(c) for any emergency arising out of natural calamities.
• An additional 75 percent of total compensation shall
be paid which was not a provision in Old act

09/28/2022 55
 R&R in Private Purchases (Section 46)

• If private purchase is beyond certain limits as

specified by the appropriate Governments then
R&R benefits to be extended to the affected families
• R&R scheme to be approved by the Commissioner
for the R&R
• N o land u se change permitted if R&R is
not complied as per the award passed by
collector
• Application to Collector has to include the
purpose, particular of land to be purchased

09/28/2022 56
 Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation &
Resettlement Authority ( Sec. 51—75)

• Single member authority

• Reference to Authority within six weeks
of the Collector's award
• Cases to be decided in six months
• Jurisdiction of civil courts barred
• Appeals to High Court with in sixty days

09/28/2022 57
 Miscellaneous

• Land/House allotted to be in joint name

• Benefits indexed to CPI
• Ownership cannot be changed
• Purpose for which acquired cannot be changed
• 40% of the appreciated value to be shared
with original owners
• Double compensation in case of
multiple displacements
• Special provisions for SCs & STs

09/28/2022 58
 Return of Land

•Section 101
•If any land or part thereof acquired under the
fr
Act remains unutilized for a period of five
years om the date of taking of the possession, the same shall
B3

return to the Land Bank/returned to the original land owners

as specified by the appropriate Government

09/28/2022 59
 Exempted Legislations (Sec 105)

• The Fourth Schedule enlists thirteen legislations

dealing with land acquisition which have been
exempted from the purview of this Act.
• The Central Government may direct by a
notification that any of the provisions of this Act
dealing with First, Second and Third Schedules;
shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under
the enactments specified under the Fourth
Schedule.
• One Year is the time limit within which all Acts to
be extended the benefits of new legislation

09/28/2022 60
 Better compensation and rehabilitation and
resettlement
• Section 108- Option to affected families to avail better compensation and
rehabilitation and resettlement.–
• (1) Where a State law or a policy framed by the Government of a State
provides for a higher compensation than calculated under this Act for the
acquisition of land, the affected persons or his family or member of his
family may at their option opt to avail such higher compensation and
rehabilitation and resettlement under such State law or such policy of the
State.
• (2) Where a State law or a policy framed by the Government of a State
offers more beneficial rehabilitation and resettlement provisions under
that Act or policy than under this Act, the affected persons or his family or
member of his family may at his option opt to avail such rehabilitation and
resettlement provisions under such State law or such policy of the State
instead of under this Act.

09/28/2022 61
 Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented by its,
Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• Ramesh Ranganathan, ACJ.

• The Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,confers rights
not only on those whose lands, and other immovable property, is to be
acquired by the State, but also on families which do not own land, but
one of whose members is an agricultural labourer, an agricultural
tenant, or a share-cropper whose primary source of livelihood is
adversely affected by the acquisition of land. Certain rights are also
conferred by the 2013 Act on the Scheduled Tribes, other traditional
forest dwellers who have lost their forest rights, gatherers of forest
dwellers who have lost their forest rights, gatherers of forest produce,
hunters, fisher-folk and boatsmen, and on those who have been
assigned lands by the State Government.

09/28/2022 62
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• While G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 claims to protect the

interests of the land owners by offering them a compensation
higher than their entitlement under the 2013 Act, do
G.O.Ms.No.190 dated 10.08.2016 and G.O.Ms.No.191 dated
15.08.2016, which seek to provide certain welfare measures to such
of those families whose only means of livelihood would be affected
by the procurement of land under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015,
adequately safeguard the statutory rights, conferred on these
marginalised sections of society, under the 2013 Act; and can these
statutory rights, conferred on these deprived Sections, either be
waived by them or circumvented by the State Government in the
exercise of its executive power either under Article 162 or Article
298 of the Constitution?

09/28/2022 63
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• In these batch of Writ Petitions, wherein the present interlocutory

applications were filed, the validity of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 05.06.2015 and
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, along with its amendment in
G.O.Ms.No.190 dated 07.10.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.214 dated 28.11.2015,
are questioned as ultra vires the 2013 Act, and a consequential direction
is sought to the respondents to follow and implement the provisions of
the 2013 Act, and not to resort to any negotiation process or forcible
dispossession or acquisition. The petitioners, in this batch of Writ
Petitions, are either land owners or assignees of land or other affected
persons living in villages which will be submerged on construction of
several irrigation projects by the State. In W.P.No.25036 of 2016, several of
the petitioners are agricultural labourers, and landless poor who are
dependent, on the lands purchased by the State under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated
30.07.2015, for their livelihood.

09/28/2022 64
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• The Government of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.75 Revenue (JA & LA)

Department dated 05.06.2015 formulating a policy called “The Telangana
State Policy for Acquisition of Land through Agreement under the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013”. G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 05.06.2015 issed for
formulation of a policy to guide and facilitate district collectors to acquire
lands, in strips or pockets, which become critical for proper viability of the
Project; and to bring the envisaged components of the Project to their logical
deliverable stage in any irrigation project, or a road work by the R & B, and
land for R & R Centers, through negotiated consent. The Government, after
examining the issue in detail, constituted a three member committee and
directed them to submit a report for formulation of a policy under Section
108 of the 2013 Act, giving a proper preamble and to frame laws to provide
for consent awards, duly defining the parameters mentioned therein.

09/28/2022 65
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• The Committee submitted its report on 21.05.2015

preparing a draft policy called the Telangana State Policy
for Acquisition of Land through Agreement under the
2013 Act. The Government considered the report of the
Committee, and decided to issue a policy under Section
108 of the 2013 Act, and in consonance with Rule 30 of
the Telangana State Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Rules, 2014 issued in G.O.Ms.No.50
Revenue (JA & LA) Department, dated 19.12.2014 (the
“2014 Rules” for short).

09/28/2022 66
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• In his affidavit dated 11.08.2016, filed in W.P.No.26601 of 2016 and batch,

the Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department, has
stated that neither the State of Telangana nor its authorities are procuring
or purchasing land by force, or against the wishes of the land owners;
they were procuring land only from those who voluntarily came forward
expressing their willingness to sell their lands; the authorities were
procuring/purchasing land for a public purpose, after payment of
consideration to the satisfaction of the owners, on the basic principle of a
willing seller and a willing purchaser; neither the Government nor its
authorities have resorted to coercion or pressure in procuring lands under
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015; several safeguards are provided in
G.O.Ms.No.123, before procuring the lands; at any stage, till the execution
of sale deeds, the land owners are entitled to withdraw from the process
of sale of their lands;

09/28/2022 67
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• the State Government has the constitutional power to

acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to make contract
for any purpose under Article 298 of the Constitution, in
addition to the common law, keeping in view the welfare of
the State, apart from the public interest; some of the
petitioners are seeking a direction to acquire their lands in
accordance with the 2013 Act; and, if the State requires the
lands of such of those petitioners for a public purpose, they
would acquire the land in exercise of their powers under the
provisions of Act 30 of 2013, or the law in force in the State of
Telangana as on the date of acquisition of the lands, by paying
the required compensation.

09/28/2022 68
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• In his Additional affidavit dated 12.11.2016, the Special

Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue Department,
submits that the State Government, in order to
expeditiously procure land for a public purpose, for the
use of public projects, has issued G.O.Ms.No.123 dated
30.07.2015 which allows the owners of the land to
participate in the developmental process voluntarily,
and on their own volition to willingly sell their lands on
a consideration mutually arrived at between the
owners of the land, and the procuring agencies, as
specified in G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015.
09/28/2022 69
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the petitioners

have specifically pleaded coercion, and that the State was forcing
them to part with their lands for the purpose of the project; this
contention has not been denied; while the State has proclaimed
that it would purchase land, only from those who voluntarily part
with their land, the material on record discloses that coercive steps
are being resorted to, in order to deprive owners of their land, by
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, instead of resorting to the
provisions of the 2013 Act; the State action, in seeking to acquire
lands through G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, necessitates being
set aside; and the State is resorting to false and deliberate
misrepresentation and misinformation to hapless land owners, in
order to indulge in speedy land acquisition.

09/28/2022 70
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• In judicial review proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

this Court would, ordinarily, not examine disputed questions of fact save
where there is unimpeachable evidence on record to show that the State, or
its officers, are exerting pressure on those, who are not willing to part with
their lands, to sell their lands to the State under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated
30.07.2015. It would be wholly inappropriate for this Court to either hold in
favour of the petitioners that the State has resorted to coercive means to force
them to sell their lands to the Government under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated
30.07.2015, or to hold in favour of the State that people are flocking in large
numbers, and are ready and willing to sell their lands to the Government under
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015. We, had, while passing interim order earlier,
made it clear that on such of those land owners, who are not willing to sell their
lands to the Government under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, approaching
this Court, the State would be injuncted from purchasing their lands under
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015.

09/28/2022 71
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• II. IS G.O.Ms.No.123 DATED 30.07.2015 ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY, AND IN

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA?
• It contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the effort of the State
Government is to divide farmers into two categories, i.e., those who are willing
to part with their land at a higher rate, and those who will be paid a far lesser
amount under the 2013 Act because they are unwilling to part with their
property; classification of farmers into these two categories is by the executive
act of the State; the State cannot divide and rule; the discrimination, arising out
of this classification, is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 smacks of the take it or leave it formula, and
suffers the wrath of Article 14; larger public interest is adversely affected by
payment of a higher price, than the market price of the land, to a chosen few;
the government cannot, thereby, squander precious public money; the State is
the custodian of public money, and cannot misutilise public funds to purchase
land at any price it wants;

09/28/2022 72
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016
• the Latin Maxim, which is applicable in the present case, is
“Ut res magis Valeat Quam Pereat” – i.e. Statute ought to
have a logical meaning and premise; the State cannot
acquire land, under the guise of ‘voluntary sale
transactions’, from land owners on terms which are highly
discriminatory, leaving room for coercion and intimidation
claiming ‘public purpose’; and the State has violated
Article 14 by paying a certain unexplained amount which has
been arbitrarily arrived at, to the land losers under the
impugned G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, and threatening
other land losers, who are similarly placed but have opted
to give up their land under Act 30 of 2013, with severe
restrictions and a severely reduced amount without
revising the market value of the lands in these areas for the
09/28/2022 73
past four years and more.
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• On the other hand, the Learned Advocate-General for the

State of Telangana would submit that, in the absence of
any specific plea or proof, and without support of any
material (documentary evidence), the petitioners cannot
allege that G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 is in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; even on
merits, the land of the owner which is compulsorily
acquired, and who is voluntarily selling the land to the
State, fall under two different and independent class of
persons; they are not similarly situated; and, hence, the
question of violation of Article 14 does not arise.

09/28/2022 74
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• Allegations in the Writ Petition must be specific, clear and unambiguous.

There must be proper pleadings and averments in the substantive
petition before the question of denial of equal protection, or the
infringement of the fundamental right to equality, can be decided. The
burden is upon him who attacks a classification to show that there has
been a clear transgression of the Constitutional principles. The claim of
equal protection under Article 14 is examined on the presumption that
the actions of the State are reasonable and justified. If a person
complains of unequal treatment, the burden squarely lies on him to
place before the Court sufficient material from which it can be inferred
that there is unequal treatment. Where, however, the necessary material
has not been placed to show how there has been unequal treatment, the
plea of violation of Article 14 cannot be entertained.

09/28/2022 75
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• The burden is on the petitioners to set out facts

necessary to sustain the plea of discrimination, and to
adduce “cogent and convincing evidence” to prove
those facts for “there is a presumption that every factor
which is relevant or material has been taken into
account in formulating the classification. Unless the
classification is unjust on the face of it, the onus lies
upon the party attacking the classification to show, by
pleading and placing necessary material before the
Court, that the said classification is unreasonable and is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
09/28/2022 76
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• A statute should be construed so as to make it effective and operative

on the principle expressed in the maxim “ut res megis valeat quam
pereat”. (It is better to validate a thing than to invalidate it). To make
out a case of denial of the equal protection of the laws under Article 14
of the Constitution, a plea of differential treatment is, by itself, not
sufficient. An applicant, pleading that Article 14 has been violated, must
show not only that he has been treated differently from another, but he
has been so treated from persons similarly circumstanced without any
reasonable basis, and such differential treatment is, by itself, not
sufficient. An applicant, pleading that Article 14 has been violated, must
show not only that he has been treated differently from another, but he
has been so treated from persons similarly circumstanced without any
reasonable basis, and such differential treatment is unjustifiably made.

09/28/2022 77
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• The State claims that the amounts paid by them under

G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, for voluntary purchase of lands
from willing land owners, is higher than the compensation payable
by the State for compulsory acquisition of these lands under the
2013 Act. What is, however, unclear is the extent of variance in the
amounts being paid under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, and the
compensation payable on compulsory acquisition under the 2013 Act.
As is evident from a bare reading of G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015,
and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the amounts paid to
these willing land owners, for voluntary purchase of lands from
them by the State, includes not only the value of the land but also
the compensation in lieu of all the other benefits which land owners
are entitled to under the Schedules to the 2013 Act.

09/28/2022 78
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• It is only if the benefits under the Schedules to the 2013 Act are
computed in monetary terms will we be in a position to know the
extent of variation, and whether such variance is so arbitrary as to
violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is only after
ascertaining the basis, on which the State Government has fixed
the amount payable for different categories of lands purchased
under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, would this Court be able
to decide whether such a basis is so wholly arbitrary and
unreasonable as to violate the equality clause in Article 14 of the
Constitution. Suffice it to hold that the material placed on record by
the petitioners is not sufficient to conclusively establish that
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 is arbitrary or in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

09/28/2022 79
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• The plea of discrimination does not, however, merit acceptance.

Persons who voluntarily sell their lands to the State Government under
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, prima-facie, constitute a class distinct
and different from those land owners who are not willing to part with
their lands under the said G.O. It is only if the lands, of those who are not
willing to part with it, are needed by it for a public purpose, would the
State be required to exercise its power of eminent domain to
compulsorily acquire their lands under the 2013 Act. Even though the
amount payable under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 is at variance,
with the compensation payable on compulsory acquisition of lands
under the 2013 Act, that, by itself, may not result in discrimination as
those land owners, who have not parted with their lands, are not
precluded from voluntarily selling their lands to the State Government,
and receive compensation

09/28/2022 80
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• III. CAN THE EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE STATE BE EXERCISED IN

CONTRAVENTION OF LEGISLATION MADE EITHER BY PARLIAMENT OR THE
STATE LEGISLATURE?
• It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the State, which has been continuously
stressing on the applicability of Section 108 of the 2013 Act, cannot change its stance and
claim that Section 108 does not apply; Section 108(1) of the 2013 Act applies only to
higher compensation and, under Section 108(2), only to better rehabilitation and
resettlement; these provisions have no application to a ‘policy’ which the State can
formulate on land acquisition, deviating from the clear provisions of the 2013 Act; the
State cannot, therefore, claim that the draconic ‘policy’, ie G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015,
is a ‘land acquisition policy’, when the 2013 Act clearly bars them from doing so; the State,
which wishes to acquire lands under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 has, despite the
pendency of the present batch of Writ Petitions wherein the validity of G.O.Ms.No.123 is
under challenge, started issuing notifications for irrigation projects violating all the
provisions of the 2013 Act relating to Social Impact Assessment (SIA) under Section 6(2),
and food security provisions under Section 10; and the State has, arrogantly, initiated
land acquisition proceedings

09/28/2022 81
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• It is no doubt true that the Government of Telangana has

formulated the policy called “The Telangana State Policy for
Acquisition of Land through Agreement under the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in
G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 05.06.2015, where under the District
Collectors have been empowered to acquire lands, in strips
or pockets, which are critical for proper viability of the
project. While the validity of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated
05.06.2015 is also under challenge in these batch of Writ
Petitions, the emphasis placed, and the arguments put forth,
on behalf of the petitioners is mainly on the validity of
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 and G.O.Ms.No.190 dated
10.08.2016.
09/28/2022 82
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• Section 107 of the 2013 Act stipulates that nothing in the 2013 Act
shall prevent any State from enacting any law to enhance or add to the
entitlements enumerated under the 2013 Act which confers higher
compensation than payable under the 2013 Act or to make provisions
for rehabilitation and resettlement which is more beneficial than those
provided under the 2013 Act.
• Section 108(1) stipulates that, where a State law or a policy
framed by the Government of a State provides for a higher
compensation than calculated under the 2013 Act for the
acquisition of land, the affected person or his family or member of
his family may, at their option, opt to avail such higher
compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement under such
State law or such policy of the State.

09/28/2022 83
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• Section 108(2) stipulates that, where a State law or

a policy framed by the Government of a State offers
more beneficial rehabilitation and resettlement
provisions under that Act or policy, than under the
2013 Act, the affected persons or his family or
member of his family may, at his option, opt to avail
such rehabilitation and resettlement provisions
under such State law or such policy of the State
instead of under the 2013 Act.

09/28/2022 84
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• Section 107 enables the State Legislature to make a law to enhance or add
to the entitlements enumerated under the 2013 Act conferring higher
compensation than payable under the 2013 Act. Similarly it confers power
on the State legislature to make provisions for rehabilitation and
resettlement which is more beneficial than the provisions of the 2013 Act.
As the 2013 Act, in so far as land owners are concerned, is a legislation for
compulsory acquisition of their lands, the power conferred on the State
legislature, under Section 107 of the 2013 Act, would be available only in
case of compulsory acquisition of lands. Likewise the State Government
has been conferred power to make a policy, under Section 108(1) of the
2013 Act, providing for higher compensation than calculated under the
2013 Act, for acquisition of land. In such a case, option is given to the
affected person or his family to opt for such higher compensation, and
rehabilitation and resettlement under the State policy.

09/28/2022 85
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• While Section 107 of the 2013 Act enables the State Legislature
to enact a law more beneficial to the affected families, Section
108(1) confers power on the State Government to frame a
policy providing for higher compensation than calculated under
the 2013 Act for acquisition of land. Acquisition of land under
the 2013 Act is compulsory acquisition, and the power
conferred on the State Government under Section 108(1) is to
frame a policy providing for higher compensation than
calculated under the 2013 Act, which can only mean that a
policy can be formulated by the State Government for payment
of higher compensation, on compulsory acquisition of land,
than what is provided under the 2013 Act.

09/28/2022 86
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016
• It is no doubt true that the requirement of a social impact
assessment under Chapter-II, and the food security provisions
under Chapter-III of the 2013 Act, are not adhered to on lands
being purchased by the State Government under
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015. The power to purchase lands,
from those land owners who voluntarily and willingly sell their
lands to the Government, is referable to Article 298 of the
Constitution of India, and it is only when the State resorts to
compulsory acquisition of lands would the provisions of the 2013
Act, including Chapter-II and Chapter-III thereof, apply. The
question, under what circumstances the State can invoke the
emergency provisions of Section 40 of the 2013 Act, does not
arise for consideration in these batch of Writ Petitions, and it is
wholly unnecessary for us to dwell on this aspect.
09/28/2022 87
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016
• G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 has been issued by the State
Government in the exercise of its executive power under Articles 154,
162 and 298 of the Constitution of India. The power of the State
Government to frame an executive policy, under Articles 162 and 298
of the Constitution of India, is available as long as such a policy does
not fall foul of any law in force, be it plenary or subordinate. As it is
co-extensive with the power of the Legislature of the State to make
laws, and is subject to the other provisions of the Constitution, the
executive power of the State can be exercised only to supplement,
and not supplant, the law made by the State Legislature, and
cannot be so frame or utilised as to override the provisions of law
as it would then destroy the very basis of the rule of law, and strike
at the very root of orderly administration of the law. If, however, the
law or the rules are silent on any particular point, the Government
can fill up the gaps and supplement the law or the rules and issue
orders not inconsistent with the law or rules already framed.
09/28/2022 88
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• It is neither necessary that there must be a law already in

existence before the executive is enabled to function nor that
the powers of the executive are limited merely to the carrying
out of these laws. The power of the Executive to act under
Article 162 of the Constitution is not abridged without a law.
If, however, there is a statutory enactment or a rule on the
matter, the executive must abide by that Act or Rule and it
cannot, in the exercise of the executive power under Article
162 of the Constitution, ignore or act contrary to that Rule or
the Act. In the absence of any Law or Rules made in relation
thereto, the State Government can exercise its executive
powers under Article 162 of the Constitution.

09/28/2022 89
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• While the executive power of the State under Article 298 of the
Constitution is a further extension of the executive power under Article 154
as extended by Article 162 of the Constitution, the questions which
necessitate examination are whether G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015,
issued by the State Government in the exercise of its executive power under
Article 298 of the Constitution falls foul of the provisions of the 2013 Act;
whether the said G.O., which relates to voluntary purchase of land from
willing land owners, is independent of the provisions of the 2013 Act which
relate to compulsory acquisition of lands; and whether the State
Government can acquire lands, in the exercise of its executive power under
Article 298, even if it is in contravention of the provisions of the 2013 Act?
These questions shall be examined in detail hereinafter. Before doing so, it
is necessary to examine the scope and ambit of the executive power of the
State under Article 298 of the Constitution.

09/28/2022 90
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• IV. ARTICLE 298 OF THE CONSTITUTION: ITS SCOPE:

• It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the
Executive has not been conferred power by the Constitution
to purchase lands of citizens without resorting to acquisition
in accordance with the 2013 Act; the word ‘and’ in Article
298 restricts exercise of the executive power of the State;
the executive power of the State to acquire land, under
Article 298 of the Constitution, is only for the purpose of
trade or business, that too where such acquisition is order
than for a public purpose; acquisition of land for a public
purpose can only be resorted to under the 2013 Act;

09/28/2022 91
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• Article 298 has no application to the present scenario of forced

acquisition of land, under the guise of ‘public purpose’, for
major irrigation projects; Article 298 should be understood in
the context of its opening and preceding functions – vis-a-vis
trade and commerce, and all corollary activities including land
acquisition for the said purpose of facilitating the State’s
involvement in trade and commerce; the “Ejusdem Generis”
rule, ie general words always take the inference given to the
Special preceding functions/words to wholly understand the
Statutes’ interpretation, should be applied; and Articles 162
and 298 of the Constitution should be read together.

09/28/2022 92
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• On the other hand, the Learned Advocate-General for the

State of Telangana would submit that the power of the
State Government to voluntarily acquire land from a
willing seller is traceable to Article 298; it is evident, from
Clause 19 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the
seventh Amendment to the Constitution, that the power
of the State Government to voluntarily acquire land under
Article 298 is not confined to trade or business, but can
extend to any purpose; the State can enter into contracts
for any purpose, including for the development activity of
the State, without constitutional impropriety;

09/28/2022 93
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• Article 298 confers on the Union Government, and

each State Government, powers with respect to
three matters: (1) to carry on trade and business;
(2) to acquire, hold and dispose of property; and (3)
to make contracts for any purpose; no prior
legislative sanction (law) is required; and prior
Legislative sanction is required only for statutory
bodies like the Greater Hyderabad Municipal
Corporation which cannot exercise power under
Article 298 of the Constitution.
09/28/2022 94
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• The functions of a modern State, unlike the Police States of old, are not confined
to mere collection of taxes or maintenance of laws and protection of the realm
from external or internal enemies. A modern State is expected to engage in all
such activities as are necessary for the promotion of the social and economic
welfare of the community. The Government, under the Constitution, is both the
State and a public authority having powers over the public, and owing duties to
them. These duties may be imposed on the Government either by the
Constitution or by a Statute. The Government is also a legal entity like a natural
or an artificial person. The object of conferring powers on the Government
under Article 298 is to obviate any objection that the Constitution has not
intended the Government to possess and exercise the normal powers and duties
of any legal person. Whatever is necessary, for the purpose of carrying on
business, can be exercised by the Government by entering into contracts. This
power to make contracts is expressly vested in the Government under Article
298 of the Constitution.

09/28/2022 95
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016
• Under Article 298 of the Constitution, the State can carry on
its executive functions by making a law or without making a
law. The exercise of such powers and functions by the State is
subject to Part III of the Constitution. Article 162 merely
provides an extensible limit and not the maximum limit of the
executive power of the State Government. It does not define
the limits of the executive power of the State Government, but
sets out matters to which such executive power shall extend.
Article 298 enlarges the scope of the executive power of the
State Government by adding various matters in respect of
which the State Government may exercise its executive power.
It includes, within the executive power of the State
Government, the power to carry on any trade or business and
to acquire, hold and dispose of property for any purpose.
09/28/2022 96
 Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana
represented by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of
2016
• IV. DOES G.O.Ms.No.123 DATED 30.07.2015 VIOLATE THE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONERS UNDER ARTICLE
19(1)(g) AND ARTICLE 21, AS ALSO THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
UNDER ARTICLE 300-A?
• It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that, by declaring the entire
area as required for a public purpose even without hearing the
objections, and without following the due process of law, the State is
depriving the petitioners of their fundamental rights as well as their
right to property; those who are not willing to part with their lands, under
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, would not be able to sell their lands to
private parties, at a mutually agreed price, as not one would buy land
which is ‘to be submerged’; in addition, obstacles are being created on the
seamless enjoyment of such lands; by allowing surrounding lands to be
procured under G.O.Ms.123, the petitioners private rights, as well as their
statutory rights under the 2013 Act, are being severely undermined, and
irreparable loss is being caused to them; and procurement of land, under
the impugned G.O.Ms.No.123,’ is in violation of Articles 19(i)(g), 21 and
300-A of the Constitution.
09/28/2022 97
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution confers on citizens the right to practise any
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. Article 21 provides
that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according
to the procedure established by law. Article 300-A stipulates that no person shall
be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The right to carry on any
trade or occupation under Article 19(1)(g), or the right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, is, prima-facie, not violated by the
State while exercising its executive power under Article 298 of the
Constitution, and in purchasing lands voluntarily from willing land owners
under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 for the agreed consideration. The
possibility of those, who are not willing to sell their lands under G.O.Ms.No.123
dated 30.07.2015, being affected thereby, as no one else may purchase their
lands which are likely to be submerged in future, cannot result in denial of the
rights of those who voluntarily and willingly sell their lands, for the agreed
consideration, to the Government.

09/28/2022 98
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• It is only on a preliminary notification being issued under Section

11(1) of the 2013 Act, can the Government be said to have
expressed its intention to acquire the notified lands for a public
purpose, and till then there is no legal bar for a land owner to sell
his land to a willing buyer, even to a person other than the State
Government. The market value of the land, which would form the
basis for determining the compensation payable on compulsory
acquisition under the 2013 Act, would be its value on the date on
which a preliminary notification is issued under Section 11(1) of
the 2013 Act and, till a preliminary notification is issued, the land
owner retains all high rights over the land including the right of
cultivation, the right to mortgage or lease it, or even to sell it to
others.

09/28/2022 99
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• The State Government cannot, while taking recourse to the executive

power of the State under Article 162, deprive a person of his property.
Such power can be exercised only by authority of law, and not by a mere
executive fiat or order. As Article 162 is subject to other provisions of the
Constitution, it is necessarily subject to Article 300-A. The word “law” in
the context of Article 300-A means an Act of Parliament or of a State
legislature, a rule, or a statutory order having the force of law, i.e. State
made law. The effect of the Constitution (Fourth) Amendment Act, 1955,
is that there can be no “deprivation” unless there is extinction of the right
to property. Acquisition means taking not by voluntary agreement, but
by authority of an Act of Parliament, and by virtue of the compulsory
powers thereby conferred. In the case of compulsory acquisition, the
property is taken by the State permanently and the title to the
property vests in the State.

09/28/2022 100
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• While the State, in the exercise of its executive power either under
Article 162 or 298 of the Constitution, cannot deprive any person of
his property, deprivation of property would arise only where there is
an extinguishment of the right to property. The possibility of the land
owners not being able to sell their lands, as the State may acquire these
lands under the 2013 Act in future, does not result in the right of the land
owners, over their property, being extinguished for, till a preliminary
notification is issued under Section 11(1) of the 2013 Act, the land owners
are free to deal with their property in any manner they choose. The fact
that the State Government is purchasing land from willing
neighbouring lands owners, cannot be said to have resulted in
deprivation of the property of land owners, such as the petitioners, as
they continue to retain ownership of such lands with all the rights
which flow there from.

09/28/2022 101
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• The submission of Learned Advocate-General that G.O.Ms.No.123 dated

30.07.2015 applies only to voluntary purchase of land and it is only when
the State would require land for a public purpose, and if the land owner is
not willing to part with the land voluntarily, would the State be required to
take recourse to the 2013 Act, is not without merit.Court already passed
interim orders to the effect that, if a person is not willing to part with
his property, the State would not resort to G.O.Ms.No.123 dated
30.07.2015 to purchase his land, but only take recourse to the
provisions of the 2013 Act. As the State has the power to acquire property
and to make contracts for such purposes, G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015
can be resorted to for voluntary purchase of land from willing land owners.
As to whether the said G.O can be applied to deprive the statutory rights of
other categories of persons, who are not land owners but are dependent
upon it for their survival, is a different matter altogether.

09/28/2022 102
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• VI. CLAUSE (b) OF THE PROVISO TO ARTICLE 298 OF THE

CONSTITUTION: ITS SCOPE:
• It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that Entry 42 of List
III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution relates to
acquisition and requisition of property; the executive power of
the State cannot be larger or broader than the legislative power
of the State; if the State cannot make a law for purchasing the
land of its citizens under Article 246 r/w the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution, it does not have the executive power to
purchase lands of citizens; since the 2013 Act enacted by
Parliament is still in force, the State Government lacks power to
acquire property under Article 298;

09/28/2022 103
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• the three components of the 2013 Act i.e acquisition, rehabilitation

and resettlement would be avoided by the State if they resort to
voluntary purchase of land in the exercise of its executive power;
the proviso to Article 298 makes it clear that the executive power
of the State is subject to legislation by Parliament; the State cannot
claim protection under Article 298 when the field is occupied by
the 2013 Act requiring ‘compulsory’ land acquisition; even if the
State’s right to acquire land, in complete derogation of the 2013 Act
exists under Article 298, it is the 2013 Act which occupies the field; and
the executive action of the State in procuring lands for a public purpose,
relying upon Article 298 without conclusively establishing the necessity
of procuring certain lands in certain locations for a stated public purpose
as per the existing law, is in violation of the 2013 Act.

09/28/2022 104
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• On the other hand, the Learned Advocate-General for

the State of Telangana would submit that the 2013
Act covers the field with respect to compulsory land
acquisition (i.e. involuntary acquisition against the
will of the owner), but does not cover the field of
voluntarily acquisition or purchase of land by the
State from the willing seller; and the 2013 Act does
not, in any way, annihilate the executive power of the
State Government to voluntarily acquire or purchase
land under Article 298.

09/28/2022 105
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• The quintessence of our Constitution is the rule of law. The State or

its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others
unless they can point to some specific rule of law which authorises
their acts. Every executive action, which operates to the prejudice of
any person, must have the sanction of law. The executive cannot
interfere with the rights and liabilities of any person unless the
legality thereof is supportable by law. By virtue of Article 162,
the State or its officers cannot, in the exercise of executive
authority and without any legislation is support thereof,
infringe upon the rights of citizens merely because the
legislature of the State has the power to legislate in regard to
the subject on which the executive order is issued.

09/28/2022 106
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• Every act done by the Government or by its officers

must, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any
person, be supported by some legislative authority.
The wisdom in exercising executive power in matters
which are governed by the provisions of law is
doubtful. Even if it be considered necessary to do
so, it cannot be so utilised as to override the
provisions of law. Such a method ‘will destroy the
very basis of the rule of law and strike at the very
root of orderly administration of law.
09/28/2022 107
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• VII. DOES VOLUNTARY PURCHASE OF LANDS FROM WILLING LAND OWNERS,

UNDER G.O.Ms.No.123 DATED 30.07.2015, VIOLATE THE STATUTORY RIGHTS
OF AFFECTED FAMILIES, OTHER THAN LAND OWNERS, CONFERRED ON THEM
UNDER THE 2013 ACT?
• It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the interests of the
marginalised and weaker sections of Society are adversely affected by the
voluntary parting of land by the landholders; the rights of these persons,
under the 2013 Act, is being circumvented by the executive act of the State in
purchasing land from land owners under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015; this
results in arbitrary and irrational acts by the State; the landless agricultural
labourers,etc, are forced to abandon their only source of livelihood, and
migrate to places outside, resulting in violation of their right to life
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution; the title of G.O.Ms.No.123 is
“Procurement of land and other structures thereon from Willing Land Owners
by the Procuring Agencies for public purposes”;

09/28/2022 108
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• there are two components in the land G.O., the first

conclusively decides a “purpose” as a “public purpose”, and the
second seeks to procure extents of land from certain persons in
a certain location for that purpose; in order to exercise the
power of acquiring/procuring land for a public purpose, either
under the 2013 Act or under Article 298 of the Constitution, it
should first be established that such land is required for a
public purpose; the questions that need to be answered are
how and when a purpose becomes a public purpose?, and
when it is conclusively decided that only such extents and
types of land, of such number of people in a particular location,
is required for such a public purpose?;

09/28/2022 109
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• as the executive has the discretion in deciding on the extent and location of the land, and the
genuineness of the proposed public purpose, arbitrariness that strikes at the root of Article 14, in the
the 2013 Act is the existing
exercise of such discretion, must be prevented or eliminated;
law that mandates a participatory, transparent and non-arbitrary
procedure to conclusively decide that the proposed purpose is a public
purpose, and only the required extent of a particular type of land, of a
particular number of people in a particular location, is necessary for such
purpose; the 2013 Act specifically provides for checks and balances, and guarantees a
right to transparency, to all project affected persons, in the payment of compensation,
and rehabilitation and resettlement, to eliminate or alteast reduce the scope for
arbitrariness; the Government has commenced the tender process, for construction of the proposed
irrigation projects, without an Environment impact assessment, or a social impact assessment or even a
declaration of the public purpose; the Social Impact assessment, presentation of the findings of its
impact in the gram sabha, taking its opinion, scrutiny of the Social impact assessment report,
recommendations by the expert committee, approval/notification by the appropriate government
under

09/28/2022 110
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• Chapter-II, and restriction on acquisition of certain types of lands under Chapter-

III, are the prior mandatory provisions required to be complied with before
arriving at a preliminary conclusion that the said land is required for a public
purpose; such a proposal transforms into a conclusive decision only after
issuance of (1) preliminary notification giving complete details of the proposed
public purpose and acquisition, and inviting objections thereto; (2) disposing of
the objections in a reasonable manner after giving a reasonable opportunity to
the project affected persons; a conclusive declaration can only be made after
conducting a household survey, preparation, consultation with the gram sabha,
and notification of the R & R scheme for all the project affected families; only
after such a conclusive declaration, that such an extent of land of such a number
of people in such a location is required for such a public purpose, can
proceedings be initiated for determination of compensation, after conducting an
award enquiry and after passing an award; a negotiation mechanism can be
evolved and incorporated only after this stage;

09/28/2022 111
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• only then can purchase of lands, from the so called willing land
owners, be resorted to; it cannot be declared before hand that
certain lands are required for a stated public purpose, and later
seek objections from the remaining few, on the proposed public
purpose, as it would be a mockery of the provisions of law, and
against principles of natural justice; the meaning and significance
of Sections 2, 8, 11, 15, 16 and 19 of the 2013 Act should be
understood in accordance with the objectives of the 2013 Act;
the power of eminent domain of the State is severely restricted,
and in some instances even negated, by the provisions of the 2013
Act; and this paradigm shift, from the 1894 Land Acquisition Act to
the 2013 Act, should be taken into consideration.

09/28/2022 112
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• On the other hand, the Learned Advocate-General for the State of

Telangana would submit that the State Government, pursuant to its
welfare obligations, is providing benefits, for those who are
dependent on the purchased land, vide G.O.Ms.Nos.190 and 191; and
an affidavit has also been filed, before this Court, to that effect.
• Certain sections of Society, such as agricultural labourers, village ,
scheduled tribes, forest dwellers, assignees etc do not own land, but
are dependent upon it for their survival, and their very existence.
Their right for rehabilitation and resettlement, on acquisition of
lands which would result in their displacement, is protected by the
2013 Act. Can their rights be denied by the State by resorting to
voluntary purchase of land from willing land owners under
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015?

09/28/2022 113
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• VIII. DO THE CONTRACTS MADE BY THE STATE, UNDER G.O.Ms.No.123

DATED 30.07.2015, VIOLATE SECTION 23 OF THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT?
• It is contended, on behalf of the petitioners, that the contracts being
made by the State, under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, are void
under Section 23 of the Contract Act, as these contracts defeat the
provisions of the 2013 Act; and the Government cannot be allowed to
execute void contracts which, apart from violation of the rights of the
petitioners, would also cause huge loss to the public exchequer. On the
other hand, the Learned Advocate-General for the State of Telangana
would submit that the State Government is also a legal entity like a
natural or artificial person; and it can also enter into a contract under
the Indian Contract Act, and purchase property exercising power under
Article 298 of the Constitution.

09/28/2022 114
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act stipulates that the

consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless
it is forbidden by law; or is of such nature that, if
permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or
is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person
or property of another; or the Court regards it as
immoral, or opposed to public policy. Section 23 further
stipulates that, in each of these cases, the consideration
or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful, and
every agreement of which the object or consideration is
unlawful is void.
09/28/2022 115
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• Any Government is a Government of laws and not of

men. As the activity of the Government has a public
element, it should be fair. The constitutional power of the
State, under Article 298 of the Constitution of India,
inheres in it a duty towards the public whose money is
being invested. Article 298 of the Constitution of India
confers a prerogative upon the State and, while exercising
its prerogative to make contracts, the State must fulfil its
constitutional obligations. It must oversee protection and
preservation of the rights adumbrated in Articles 14, 19,
21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

09/28/2022 116
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• The State or the public authority, which holds the

property for the public or which has been assigned
the duty of grant of largesse etc, acts as a trustee
and should act fairly and reasonably. All powers so
vested are meant to be exercised for the public
good, and for promoting the public interest. Any
unjust condition, thrust upon any person by the
State, would attract the wrath of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India as also Section 23 of the Indian
Contract Act.
09/28/2022 117
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• All constitutional powers, including Article 298, carry

corresponding obligations with them. This is the rule of law
which regulates the operation of organs of Government
functioning under a Constitution. The bargaining power of the
State and the citizen is unequal. Any unjust condition thrust
upon the petitioners by the State in such matters, would
attract the wrath of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.
Equity and good conscience should be at the core of all
governmental functions. Every executive action, which operates
to the prejudice of any person, must have the sanction of law.
The executive cannot interfere with the rights of any person
unless the legality thereof is supportable in any court of law.

09/28/2022 118
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• The contracts bring made by the State Government,

under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015 (i.e. sale deeds
executed in its favour by land owners), violate the
statutory rights of affected families, other than land
owners, which are protected by the provisions of the
2013 Act. These contracts are of a nature which, if
permitted to be continued to made, would defeat the
provision of the 2013 Act. Contracts entered into by the
State under G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, prima-
facie, violate Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.

09/28/2022 119
Kondakandla Yadaiah & Others v. State of Telangana represented
by its, Chief Secretary, Telangana W.P.No.25036 of 2016

• While the question, whether such of these contracts

which are already made are void ab-initio, can only be
answered on the Writ Petitions being finally heard, we
are satisfied that the State Government should not be
permitted, hereinafter, to enter into contracts under
G.O.Ms.No.123 dated 30.07.2015, to purchase lands for
construction of irrigation projects, without complying
with the rehabilitation and resettlement provisions of
the 2013 Act, more particularly those stipulated under
the Second and Third Schedules thereto.

09/28/2022 120
 SIA
1 Introduction
2 Causes and Types of Social Impacts
3 Steps in Conducting SIA
4 Principles of Good Practice
5 Sources of SIA Information and
Methods of Data Collection
6 Identification and Assessment
of Social Impacts
7 Community Involvement in SIA
8 Preparing a SIA Report
9 Impact Mitigation
 9
IMPACT MITIGATION
 Section 31 of the 1894 Act

• To find out the meaning of the expression, “compensation has not been
paid”, it is necessary to have a look at Section 31 of the 1894 Act. The said
Section, to the extent it is relevant, reads as follows:
• “31. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Court. –
• (1) On making an award under section 11, the Collector shall tender
payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested
entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless
prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next
sub-section.
• (2) If they shall not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent
to alienate the land, or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the
compensation or as to the apportionment of it, the Collector shall deposit
the amount of the compensation in the Court to which a reference under 
section 18 would be submitted:

09/28/2022 123
 Section-24 LARR 2013

• Section-24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894

shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.–(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
• (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then
such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said
Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed

09/28/2022 124
 Section-24 LARR 2013

• (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),

in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 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:

09/28/2022 125
 Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal,
Solanki and Others.

• Leave granted in Civil Appeal 877/2014 arising out of SLP(C)

30283/2008.
• In these 18 appeals, by special leave, it is argued on behalf of
the respondents-landowners that in view of Section 24(2) of
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for
short, '2013 Act') which has come into effect on 01.01.2014,
the subject land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have lapsed. The question for
decision relates to true meaning of the
expression:"compensation has not been paid" occurring in
Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

09/28/2022 126
 Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal,
Solanki and Others.

• 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
duly approved by the Standing Committee for acquisition
of lands 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.
09/28/2022 127
 Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal,
Solanki and Others.

• Then notices under Section 4(1) we reserved 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, on31.01.2008 the Special Land Acquisition Officer
made the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act.
• The landowners challenged the above acquisition proceedings
before the Bombay High Court in 9 writ petitions. Of them, 2
were filed before making award and 7 after the award. The
challenge to the acquisition proceedings and the validity of the
award was laid on diverse grounds including

09/28/2022 128
 Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal,
Solanki and Others.

• i. absence of resolution of the General Body of the Corporation;

• ii. non-compliance with the provisions of Section 5A,
• iii. non-compliance with the provisions of Section 7, and
• iv. lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 11A.
• The High Court on consideration of the arguments advanced before it by
the parties has held that the acquisition proceedings for the
development of "Forest Garden" could not be initiated by the
Commissioner with the mere approval of the Standing Committee
without resolution of the General Body of the Corporation. The
acquisition proceedings were also held bad in law for non-compliance of
Section 7 and other statutory breaches. Inter alia, the High Court has
quashed the acquisition proceedings and gave certain directions
including restoration of possession.

09/28/2022 129
 Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal,
Solanki and Others.

• It is argued on behalf of the landowners that by

virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the subject
acquisition shall be deemed to have been lapsed
because the award under Section 11 of the 1894
Act is made more than five years prior to the
commencement of 2013 Act and no compensation
has been paid to the owners nor the amount of
compensation has been deposited in the court by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

09/28/2022 130
Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal, Solanki and Others.

• On the other hand, on behalf of the Corporation and so also for the
Collector, it is argued that the award was made by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer on 31.01.2008 strictly in terms of 1894 Act and on the
very day the landowners were informed regarding the quantum of
compensation for their respective lands.
• Notices were also issued to the landowners to reach the office of the
Special Land Acquisition Officer and receive the amount of compensation
and since they neither received the compensation nor any request
came from them to make reference to the District Court under Section
18, the compensation amounting to Rs.27 crores was deposited in the
government treasury. It is, thus, submitted that there was no default on
the part of the Special Land Acquisition Officer or the government and,
hence, the acquisition proceedings have not lapsed.

09/28/2022 131
 Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal,
Solanki and Others.

• Moreover, reliance is also placed on Section 114 of the

2013 Act and it is argued that the concluded land
acquisition proceedings are not at all affected by Section
24(2) and the only right that survives to the landowners is
to receive compensation.
• 2013 Act puts in place entirely new regime for
compulsory acquisition of land and provides for new
scheme for compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement
to the affected families whose land has been acquired or
proposed to be acquired or affected by such acquisition.

09/28/2022 132
 Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal,
Solanki and Others.

• In so far as sub-section (1) of Section 24 is concerned, it begins

with non obstante clause. By this, Parliament has given
overriding effect to this provision over all other provisions of
2013 Act. It is provided in clause (a) that where the land
acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the 1894 Act
but no award under Section 11 is made, then the provisions of
2013 Act shall apply relating to the determination of
compensation. Clause (b) of Section 24(1) makes provision that
where land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under
the 1894 Act and award has been made under Section 11, then
such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the
1894 Act as if that Act has not been repealed.

09/28/2022 133
 Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal,
Solanki and Others.

• Section 24(2) also begins with non obstante clause. This

provision has overriding effect over Section 24(1).
Section 24(2) enacts that in relation to the land
acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894Act, where
an award has been made five years or more prior to the
commencement of the 2013 Act and either of the two
contingencies is satisfied, viz;
• (i) physical possession of the land has not been taken or
• (ii) the compensation has not been paid, such
acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed.

09/28/2022 134
 Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal,
Solanki and Others.

• Section 31 of the 1894 Act makes provision for payment

of compensation or deposit of the same in the court.
This provision requires that the Collector should tender
payment of compensation as awarded by him to the
persons interested who are entitled to compensation.
If due to happening of any contingency as
contemplated in Section 31(2), the compensation has
not been paid, the Collector should deposit the
amount of compensation in the court to which
reference can be made under Section 18.

09/28/2022 135
 Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal,
Solanki and Others

• Now, this is admitted position that award was made

on31.01.2008. Notices were issued to the
landowners to receive the compensation and since
they did not receive the compensation, the
amount (Rs.27 crores) was deposited in the
government treasury. Can it be said that deposit of
the amount of compensation in the government
treasury is equivalent to the amount of
compensation paid to the landowners/persons
interested? The court do not think so.
09/28/2022 136
 Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal,
Solanki and Others

• 1894 Act being an expropriatory legislation has to be

strictly followed. The procedure, mode and manner
for payment of compensation are prescribed in Part
V (Sections 31-34) of the 1894 Act. The Collector,
with regard to the payment of compensation, can
only act in the manner so provided. It is settled
proposition of law that where a power is given to do
a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be
done in that way or not at all. Other methods of
performance are necessarily forbidden.
09/28/2022 137
 Pune Municipal Corporation and ANR Vrs. Harakchand, Miscimal,
Solanki and Others.

• From the above, it is clear that the award pertaining to the

subject land has been made by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer more than five years prior to the commencement of
the 2013 Act. It is also admitted position that compensation
so awarded has neither been paid to the
landowners/persons interested nor deposited in the court.
The deposit of compensation amount in the government
treasury is of no avail and cannot be held to be equivalent to
compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested.
Court held that, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the
subject land acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to
have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
• The appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.
09/28/2022 138
 “tender”
• The performance of an obligation by the delivery of money or some other valuable
thing accepted in partial or full discharge of the obligation.” The definition of “tender”
has been outlined by this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 as
follows, A tender is an offer. It is something which invites and is communicated to notify
acceptance. Broadly stated, the following are the requisites of a valid tender:
• 1. It must be unconditional.
• 2. Must be made at the proper place.
• 3. Must conform to the terms of obligation.
• 4. Must be made at the proper time.
• 5. Must be made in the proper form.
• 6. The person by whom the tender is made must be able and willing to perform his
obligations.
• 7. There must be reasonable opportunity for inspection.
• 8. Tender must be made to the proper person.
• 9. It must be of full amount.”

09/28/2022 139
• a statute is to be read as a whole. A statute
has to be understood by making construction
on all the parts together and not of one part
only by itself. Every clause in a statute is to be
construed with reference to the context and
other clauses of the Act,as far as possible, to
make a consistent enactment of the whole
statute. 

09/28/2022 140
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

• All the writ petitions raise a common issue

and, therefore, the same are being disposed
of by a common judgment. The point urged on
behalf of the petitioners in this batch of writ
petitions is that the acquisition of their lands
lapsed on account of applicability of section
24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
09/28/2022 141
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

• 2. It is the case of the petitioners that the

conditions for attracting the deeming
provisions of section 24(2) of the new Act
have been satisfied and, therefore, all
proceedings towards acquisition of land under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ought to be
deemed to have lapsed.

09/28/2022 142
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

• 3. It is evident upon a plain reading of the above

provisions that by virtue of sub-section (1) thereof, that,
where no award under section 11 of the old Act has
been made, the land acquisition proceedings initiated
under the old Act would be governed by the provisions
of the new Act relating to the determination of
compensation. However, where an award has been
made under section 11 of the old Act, then such
proceedings would continue under the provisions of the
old Act as if the old Act had not been repealed.

09/28/2022 143
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

• This is, however, subject to the non-obstante provisions

contained in sub-section (2) of section 24 of the new Act
which clearly stipulates that where an award under
section 11 of the old Act has been made five years or
more prior to the commencement of the new 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. It is also stipulated that
the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, can initiate
the proceedings of land acquisition afresh in accordance
with the provisions of the new Act.

09/28/2022 144
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

• 4. In the present writ petitions, it is an admitted position in

view of the affidavit dated 27.05.2014, which has been
handed over across the Bar and is taken on record, that
possession has not been taken and compensation has also
not been paid. Furthermore, the award in each of these
cases has been made more than 5 years prior to the
commencement of the new Act (i.e., 01.01.2014). Therefore,
it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
all the conditions stipulated in section 24 (2) of the new Act
have been satisfied and, as such, they are entitled to a
declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.

09/28/2022 145
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

• 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners

placed reliance on three decisions of the
Supreme Court in Pune Municipal Corporation
and Anr. v. Harakchand Mistrimal Solanki &
Ors.: (2014) 3 SCC 183; Bharat Kumar v. State
of Haryana & Anr.: 2014 (3) SCALE 393 and
Union of India v. Shiv Raj & Ors.: (Civil Appeal
Nos.5478-5483/2014 decided on 07.05.2014)

09/28/2022 146
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

• 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents submit that although it is an admitted position
that the award in each of these petitions has been made more
than five years prior to the commencement of the new Act
and that compensation has not been paid and also that the
possession has not been taken, the defence prayer is that the
petitioners are yet not entitled to the benefit of the deeming
provisions under section 24 (2) of the new Act since
possession in these cases could not be taken due to interim
orders passed by this Court and because of the fact that
possession could not be taken, compensation has also not
been paid.

09/28/2022 147
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

• 8. The learned counsel for the respondents also

submitted that no party can be put to a disadvantage
because of an act of the Court. Since this Court had
passed interim orders, it cannot work to the
disadvantage of the respondents.
• 9. The court is of the view that they have already set out
section 24 of the new Act in its entirety. It is evident
that section 24(2) of the new Act is a non-obstante
provision. The conditions which are required to be
satisfied before the deeming provision is triggered are:-

09/28/2022 148
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

• (i) The award should have been made under section 11 of the old Act,
more than five years prior to the commencement of the new act; and
• (ii) Physical possession of the land in question should not have been
taken; or
• (iii) The compensation should not have been paid.
• These conditions are unqualified. It does not matter as to what was
the reason behind the non-payment of compensation or for not
taking possession. If the legislature wanted to qualify the above
conditions by excluding the period during which the proceedings of
acquisition of land were held up on account of stay or injunction by
way of an order of a Court, it could have been expressly spelt out.

09/28/2022 149
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

• In fact, whenever the legislature thought that it

was necessary to spell out such an intention, it did.
An example of this is to be found in the first proviso
to section 19 (7) of the new Act which is as under:-
“19 (7)……..Provided that in computing the period
referred to in this sub-section, any period or
periods during which the proceedings for the
acquisition of the land were held up on account of
any stay or injunction by the order of any Court
shall be excluded.”
09/28/2022 150
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

The deeming provision of section 24(2) is a legal fiction

which is a created and an imagined situation. We (The
Court) ought not to be concerned with the inevitable
corollaries that may flow out of it unless there is a clear
prohibition in the statute itself. Once the state of affairs is
imagined as real, the consequences and instances would
also have to be imagined as real. Therefore, the fact that
the possession could not have been taken by the
respondents because of interim orders of the Court, would
not in any way prevent this Court from imagining the state
of affairs stipulated in Section 24(2) of the new Act.

09/28/2022 151
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

• The only conditions that are required for the

deeming provisions to be triggered are that the
award must have been made five years or more
prior to the commencement of the new Act and
that either physical possession of the land has not
been taken or that the compensation has not been
paid. In fact in these writ petitions all the
conditions stands satisfied. Therefore, the
contention of the learned counsel for the
respondent cannot be accepted.
09/28/2022 152
 JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. Vrs UOI &ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI Judgment delivered on: 27.05.2014
W.P.(C) Nos.2806/2004 & 2807-2934/2004

• 16. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners are

entitled to succeed in view of the deeming
provisions of Section 24(2) of the new Act. The
acquisition proceedings in all these writ petitions
shall be deemed to have lapsed in respect of the
petitioners‟ lands. We make it clear that we have
not examined any other aspect in these writ
petitions apart from what we have said above.
• The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
There shall be no order as to costs.
09/28/2022 153
 Vidhya Sagar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6686/2005
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

• These petitions for writ were preferred in the year 2005 to

challenge the land acquisition proceedings initiated under a
notification dated 23.8.2004 as per provisions of Section 4(2)
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act of 1894'). In some of the writ petitions, while issuing
post admission notices to the respondents, this Court as an
interim measure restrained the respondent State from taking
over physical possession over the land under acquisition. The
State Government, however, did not choose to take over
possession of the land from any of the petitioners, who are
the land owners of the land subjected to acquisition.

09/28/2022 154
• During pendency of the petition for writ the Land Acquisition Officer passed
the award as per Section 11 of the Act of 1894 on 25.2.2006 and the same was
approved by the Government of Rajasthan on 25.6.2007. The amount of
compensation was said to be offered to the petitioners, but they refused to
take the same, thus, the amount of compensation was deposited in the court
of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sriganganagar.
• An application in SB Civil Writ Petition No.6686/2005 has now been preferred
with assertion that in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 , the land acquisition proceedings
initiated under the Act of 1894 have been lapsed and no further action with
regard to acquisition can now be taken by the respondents. A declaration is
sought to the effect that the respondents now cannot proceed against the
petitioners in pursuant to the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894.

09/28/2022 155
• The application has been contested by the respondents by way
of filing reply to the same. According to the respondents the
land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the
notification dated 23.8.2004, a report as per Section 5-A of the
Act of 1894 was sent to the State
• Government on 21.4.2005 and a declaration as per Section 6
came to be published on 30.5.2005. Notices as per Section 9(3)
of the Act of 1894 were also issued to the persons interested
and after considering their objections award was passed by the
Land Acquisition Officer on 25.2.2006, however, prior to passing
of the award the petitioners preferred writ petitions before this
Court.

09/28/2022 156
• In two petitions for writ, interim direction was given for not
dispossessing the land owner concerned from the land in
question. In view of the interim order passed by this Court, the
amount of compensation was not paid to the petitioners
immediately after acceptance of the award but at a subsequent
stage the same was offered and on being not accepted, the
same was deposited in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Sriganganagar. According to the respondents, looking to the lis-
pendent the possession of the land was not taken and for the
same reason the compensation was also not paid, thus, the
protection given under sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act
of 2013 is not available in the instant matters.

09/28/2022 157
• During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners
pointed out that compensation awarded was offered and deposited
before the court concerned as per provisions of Section 31 of the Act
of 1894, either after filing of the present application or at least after
January 1st, 2014. The fact aforesaid has not been disputed by
counsel for the respondents.
• Precisely, the question that requires determination in the instant
application is that whether the protection as given under sub-
section(2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 is available to the
petitioners who are having possession over the land in question
because of an interim order passed by this Court and further that the
awarded compensation has already been deposited before the court
competent court as per provisions of Section 31 of the Act of 1894.

09/28/2022 158
• To get the issue more clear, it shall be appropriate to mention
here that the Act of 2013 came into force from January 1,
2014, repealing the Act of 1894. Beside the other objects, an
important object of the Act of 2013 is to provide just and fair
compensation to the effected persons whose land has been
acquired or proposed to be acquired or are effected by such
acquisition. To achieve this object the legislature has also
provided a deeming provision to get the stale land acquisition
proceedings lapsed, if the physical possession of the land has
not been taken or the compensation has not been paid even
after making the award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894

09/28/2022 159
• The provision of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 ensures fair
compensation to the land owners who faced agony of the process of
land acquisition for several years, but retained possession over the
land. This provision nowhere refers the reasons for keeping
possession of the land even after passing of the award. Sub-
section(2) of Section 24 nowhere excludes its application for the
land that remained under possession of the land owner due to
litigation and the interim orders passed therein. The requirement
for operating the provision of sub-section(2) of Section 24 is very
specific and clear and i.e. passing of the award five years earlier
from the date of commencement of the Act of 2013 and further
non-taking of physical possession of the land under acquisition, or
non-payment of the compensation awarded.

09/28/2022 160
• If the legislature had any intent to exclude the application of
sub-section(2) of Section 24, then that should have been
mentioned in the clear terms, as that is provided under
Section 11-A of the Act of 1894. The Section 11-A of the Act
of 1894 provides a definite period for making an award and
the explanation given below the proviso to Section 11- A
states that in computing the period prescribed for making an
award shall exclude the period during which any action or
proceedings to be taken in pursuance of the publication of
the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. No
such exclusion is given under Section 24 of the Act of 2013.

09/28/2022 161
• The language used in sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act
of 2013 is unambiguous and does not lead to any absurdity,
anomaly, contradiction or injustice. As a matter of fact its
plain reading and absolute application fulfil the object of the
Act of 2013, i.e. of giving just and fair compensation to the
land owners. In such circumstances, the intention of the
legislature is to be gathered by giving ordinary and plain
meaning to the words and phrases used in the statute. I do
not find any reason for deviating from the natural and
ordinary meaning of the statute by adding something to it,
which has not been introduced by the legislature.

09/28/2022 162
• It is quite pertinent to note that the draft rules for the Act of 2013 were put
to in public domain for discussions on being notified on 14.10.2013. The
Rule 23 of the working draft was relating to retrospective application of
Section 24 and as per proposed sub-rule(3), where possession of the land
under acquisition was not taken due to the acquisition process challenged in
a court of law, then the period spent under litigation was to be counted for
the purpose of determining the period of five years, necessary to have
operation of sub-section(2). The Rules were notified in gazette on
31.12.2013. The subrule ( 3) aforesaid of the working draft was not included
in the gazette notification. This non-inclusion clearly indicates that the Rule
making authority was also not interested to take into count the period that
spent under litigation. For abundant caution, it is made clear that the rules
referred above have yet not been came into force but reference of those has
been given only to indicate the intention of the rule framing authority.

09/28/2022 163
 LARR
Dr. Arvind Nath Tripathi
DSNLU

09/28/2022 164
 Determination of Market Value for Land Acquisition

• The Aims And Objectives Of The Act

• The aims and objectives of the Act include:
• • To ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self-
government and Gram Sabhas a humane, participative, informed
and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialization,
development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanization
with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other
affected families.
• • Provide just and fair compensation to the affected families whose
land has been acquired or are affected by such acquisition.
• • Make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their
rehabilitation and resettlement.

09/28/2022 165
 Determination of Market Value for Land
Acquisition
• Jurisdiction Of Courts
• No lower civil court, u/s 63 shall have jurisdiction to entertain any dispute
relating to land acquisition in respect of which the collector or the authority
is empowered and no injunction shall be granted by any court in respect of
any such matter. If aggrieved by the Award of the Collector by person
interested in compensation and any reference is made to Authority u/s 64by
the Collector, the final Award shall be in accordance with S. 69.
• Appeal to High Court: The appropriate Government or a Requiring Body or
any person aggrieved by the Award passed by an Authority under section 69
may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of
Award; provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant
was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said
period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days as
per S. 74. A period of six months is the time limit for disposal of case.

09/28/2022 166
 Determination of Market Value for Land
Acquisition
• Market Value
• Market value is the estimated amount for which an asset or
liability should exchange on the valuation date between a
willing buyer and a willing seller in arm’s length transaction,
after proper marketing and where the parties had each acted
knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. According
to Supreme Court in the case of Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra v.
Union of India (UOI) 2014(145)DRJ497 , the first question that
emerges is what would be the reasonable market value which
the acquired lands are capable of fetching. While fixing the
market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer
is required to keep in mind the following factors:

09/28/2022 167
 Determination of Market Value for Land
Acquisition
• i. existing geographical situation of the land;
• ii. existing use of the land;
• iii. already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway
or road and/or developed area and
• iv. market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or
adjacent or very near to the acquired land.
• The standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired
land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation publication
of notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act, acting as a hypothetical
purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the prevailing price
on that day, from a seller willing to sell such land at a reasonable price. Thus,
the market value is determined with reference to the open market sale of
comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing
buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification, as that would give
a fair indication of the market value.
09/28/2022 168
 Determination of Market Value for Land
Acquisition
• In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat this Court laid down
the following principles for determination of market value of the
acquired land: (SCC pp. 796-97, paras 17-20)
• “(17) Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be
considered in determining the compensation; the principal among
which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date
of the publication of the notification Under Sub-section (1) of Section 4.
• (18) One of the principles for determination of the amount of
compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an
informed buyer to offer the price therefore It is beyond any cavil that
the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer
would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and
enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not.

09/28/2022 169
 Determination of Market Value for Land
Acquisition
• (19) Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the
open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs
of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming
either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at
or about the date of notification Under Section 4(1) or otherwise,
other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.
• (20) The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with
mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified
having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity
from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land
under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard
to various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under
acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition....”

09/28/2022 170
 Determination of Market Value for Land
Acquisition
• While taking comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value
of the acquired land, there are certain factors which are required to be satisfied and
only on fulfillment of those factors, the compensation can be awarded according to
the value of the land stated in the sale deeds.
• In Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Ors. v. K.S. Gangadharappa
and Anr.3- factors which merit consideration as comparable sales are, inter alia, laid
down as under:
• It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the
underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales
are made:
• (i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification Under Section 4(1);
• (ii) It should be a bona fide transaction;
• (iii) It should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired;
• and
• (iv) It should possess similar advantages.

09/28/2022 171
 Determination of Market Value for Land
Acquisition
• Compensation for land is often complicated, particularly the estimation of land
values. The market value is one option used. This is commonly defined as “the
estimated amount that the land might be expected to realise if sold in the open
market at valuation date after proper marketing between a willing seller and a
willing buyer and they had acted knowledgeably, prudently, and willingly”.
• Fair market value might be used exchangeable with market value, but there is a
distinction between them. The fairness of market value herein reflects the
estimated price for the transfer of a property between willing parties who have
the respective interests of those parties. It is necessary to carry out the
assessment of the price that is fair for those parties taking consideration on the
respective advantages and disadvantages that each is able to obtain from the
transaction. Meanwhile, market value entails the strong points that are not
available to market participants generally to be ignored, and therefore the
concept of market value is narrower than fair market value.

09/28/2022 172
 Determination of Market Value for Land
Acquisition
• The Collector having determined the market value of the land to be
acquired shall under
• Section 27 calculate the total amount of compensation to be paid to
the land owner whose land has been acquired by including all assets
attached to the land.
• In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land
acquired under this Act, the Collector shall under Section 28 take into
consideration–
• • the market value as determined under section 26 and the award
amount in accordance with the First and Second Schedules;
• • the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the
taking of any standing crops and trees which may be on the land at the
time of the Collector’s taking possession thereof;

09/28/2022 173
 Determination of Market Value for Land
Acquisition
• • the damage sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector’s
taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other
land;
• • the damage sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector’s
taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting
his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
• • in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person
interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the
reasonable expenses incidental to such change;
• • the damage bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land
between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 19 and the
time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land: and
• • any other ground which may be in the interest of equity, justice and beneficial
to the affected families.

09/28/2022 174
• 24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be
deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.–(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
• (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then
such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said
Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed.

09/28/2022 175
• (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),
in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 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:

09/28/2022 176
• 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, all
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.
09/28/2022 177
 Indore Development Authority Manoharlal 
(“IDA 2020”)
• Full Bench decisions of the Supreme Court had
previously arrived at opposing conclusions on the
interpretation of Section 24, which is how the
matter came to be placed before a 5-judge bench.
The Constitution Bench has adopted the view of the
earlier Indore Development Authority v Shailendra
& Ors (“IDA 2018”) (decided on 08.02.2018) and
over-ruled Pune Municipal Corporation v
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors (decided on
24.01.2014).
09/28/2022 178
 THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN
LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT
(AMENDMENT) ORDINANCE, 2015

• The most controversial provisions in the Ordinances

were the exemption from the mandatory landowner
consent requirements and discretion given to the
state governments to exempt Social Impact
Assessment (SIA) and multi-crop land acquisition
restrictions for five categories of projects; projects
vital to national security or defence of India; rural
infrastructure including electrification; affordable
housing and housing for the poor people; industrial
corridors and infrastructure projects including PPP
projects where land ownership continues to vest
with the government.
09/28/2022 179
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• Two Full Bench decisions of the Supreme Court had

previously arrived at opposing conclusions on the
interpretation of Section 24, which is how the
matter came to be placed before a 5-judge bench.
The Constitution Bench has adopted the view of the
earlier Indore Development Authority v Shailendra
& Ors (“IDA 2018”) (decided on 08.02.2018) and
over-ruled Pune Municipal Corporation v
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors (decided on
24.01.2014).
09/28/2022 180
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• Section 24 deals with the validity of land acquisition

proceedings initiated under the now repealed Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (“1894 Act”). It envisages two
scenarios wherein proceedings initiated under the 1894
Act would be deemed to have lapsed. It says that when
an award of compensation was made five years or more
prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act, then if
• (i) physical possession of the land had not been taken; or
• (ii) compensation had not been paid, land acquisition
proceedings under the 1894 Act would lapse.

09/28/2022 181
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• The primary controversy revolved around the meaning of the word ‘paid’. 
• The Pune Municipal Corporation held that if a land holder refused to accept
the compensation when tendered due to a dispute, it would be deemed to
have been paid only when it was deposited into a court and not when it
was deposited into the government treasury.
• On the other hand, IDA 2018 said that compensation would be deemed to
have been paid the moment it was tendered by the Collector, irrespective
of the correctness of its quantum and of the fact that it was unacceptable
to the land holder.
• We find the decision in IDA 2020 to be problematic on merits for more
reasons than one and have critiqued it elsewhere. In this post though, we
seek to discuss how IDA 2020 was an appropriate case to apply the
Doctrine of Prospective Over-Ruling (“the Doctrine”).

09/28/2022 182
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• What is the Doctrine of Prospective Over-Ruling?

• As explained by the Supreme court in Sarwan Kumar v Madan
Lal Aggarwal (decided on 06.02.2003):
• The doctrine of ‘prospective overruling was initially made
applicable to matters arising under the Constitution but we
understand the same has since been applicable to matters
arising under the statutes as well. Under the doctrine of
“prospective overruling” the law declared by the Court applies
to the cases arising in future only and its applicability to the
cases which have attained finality is saved because the repeal
would otherwise work hardship to those who had trusted to its
existence.

09/28/2022 183
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• Usually, when the Supreme Court interprets a

particular provision of law, it is not laying down any
new law, but only interpreting existing law. Thus, any
interpretation of a provision will relate back to date of
the law coming into force. This may inflict unforeseen
hardship on several litigants, especially those whose
cases have attained finality. To remedy this hardship is
the basis for the doctrine. It can be invoked to say
that the interpretation conferred by the Supreme
Court will only have prospective application.

09/28/2022 184
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• As shown in the CPR Study, it is also important to keep

in mind that the cases before the Supreme Court are
often bunched together. On an average, a single land
acquisition case involves more than 10 petitioners. This
gives us an idea of the number of people and families
whose lives will be affected by the revival of the cases
— their lands will once again be subjected to long
drawn litigations with uncertain outcomes after a
period of at least 11 years and they will even be unable
to obtain the additional benefits under the 2013 Act.

09/28/2022 185
09/28/2022 186
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• Supreme Court: In a landmark ruling the 5-judge

bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran,
MR Shah, and Ravindra Bhat, JJ has unanimously
held that the land owners who had refused to accept
compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (Land Acquisition Act, 2013).
09/28/2022 187
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• The bench also held that under the provisions of Section

24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, in case the award is not made as
on 1.1.2014, the date of commencement of Act of 2013,
there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation has to be
determined under the provisions of Act of 2013.
• Giving elaborate explanation to the provision under
Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, the Court,
further, held,

09/28/2022 188
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• In case the award has been passed within the window period of
five years excluding the period covered by an interim order of
the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided under
Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 under the Act of 1894 as if it
has not been repealed.
• The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and
compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed
lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the
Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities
for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act,
the possession of land has not been taken nor compensation
has been paid.

09/28/2022 189
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• “in case possession has been taken, compensation has not been
paid then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been
paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.”
• The expression ‘paid’ in the main part of Section 24(2) of the Act
of 2013 does not include a deposit of compensation in court.
• “Non-deposit of compensation (in court) does not result in the
lapse of land acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit
with respect to the majority of holdings for five years or more,
compensation under the Act of 2013 has to be paid to the
“landowners” as on the date of notification for land acquisition
under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.”

09/28/2022 190
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• In case a person has been tendered the

compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of
the Act of 1894, it is not open to him to claim that
acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to
non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in
court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering
the amount under Section 31(1).
• The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 is to
be treated as part of Section 24(2) not part of
Section 24(1)(b).
09/28/2022 191
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020
• The mode of taking possession under the Act of 1894 and as
contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest report/
memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking possession
under Section 16 of the Act of 1894, the land vests in State there is
no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, as once
possession has been taken there is no lapse under Section 24(2).
• The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed lapse of
proceedings are applicable in case authorities have failed due to
their inaction to take possession and pay compensation for five
years or more before the Act of 2013 came into force, in a
proceeding for land acquisition pending with concerned authority as
on 1.1.2014. The period of subsistence of interim orders passed by
court has to be excluded in the computation of five years.

09/28/2022 192
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to new
cause of action to question the legality of concluded
proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the
Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does not revive stale and
time-barred claims and does not reopen concluded
proceedings nor allow landowners to question the
legality of mode of taking possession to reopen
proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in the
treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.

09/28/2022 193
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr v

Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors1,
interpreted Section 24 of the Act of 2013 held
that Section 24 (2) of the Act of 2013 does not
exclude any period during which the land
acquisition proceeding might have remained
stayed on account of stay or injunction
granted by any court) and referred the issue to
a larger Bench.
09/28/2022 194
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• (Indore Development Authority v Shailendra

(dead) through Lrs. & Ors.4) the matter was
referred to a larger Bench on 7.12.2017; the
Court noticed that: “cases which have been
concluded are being revived. In spite of not
accepting the compensation deliberately and
statement are made in the Court that they do
not want to receive the compensation at any
cost, and they are agitating the matter time
09/28/2022 195
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• and again after having lost the matters and

when proceedings are kept pending by interim
orders by filing successive petitions, the
provisions of section 24 cannot be invoked by
such landowners.”

09/28/2022 196
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• Indore Development Authority v Shyam Verma & Ors (SLP

No. 9798 of 2016) considered it appropriate to refer the
matter to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to refer the
issues to be resolved by a larger Bench at the earliest. Yet
again in State of Haryana v Maharana Pratap Charitable
Trust (Regd) & Anr (CA No.4835 of 2015) referred the
matter to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to constitute
an appropriate Bench for consideration of the larger issue.
These batch appeals were referred to a five Judge Bench,
which after hearing counsel, framed the following
questions, which arise for consideration:

09/28/2022 197
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• “1. What is the meaning of the expression paid'/tender' in Section

24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013')
and Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, LA (Act of 1894')?

• Whether non-deposit of compensation in court under section 31(2)

of the Act of 1894 results into lapse of acquisition under section
24(2) of the Act of 2013. What are the consequences of non-
deposit in Court especially when compensation has been tendered
and refused under section 31(1) of the Act of 1894 and section 24(2)
of the Act of 2013? Whether such persons after refusal can take
advantage of their wrong/conduct?

09/28/2022 198
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• 2. Whether the word or' should be read as

conjunctive or disjunctive in Section 24(2) of the Act
of 2013?
• 3. What is the true effect of the proviso, does it form
part of subSection (2) or main Section 24 of the Act
of 2013?
• 4. What is mode of taking possession under the Land
Acquisition Act and true meaning of expression the
physical possession of the land has not been taken
occurring in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013?
09/28/2022 199
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• 5. Whether the period covered by an interim

order of a Court concerning land acquisition
proceedings ought to be excluded for the
purpose of applicability of Section 24(2) of the
Act of 2013 ?
• 6. Whether Section 24 of the Act of 2013
revives barred and stale claims? In addition,
question of per incuriam and other incidental
questions also to be gone into.”
09/28/2022 200
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• Question nos.1 to 3 are interconnected and concern the correct interpretation

of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Following questions are required to be
gone into to interpret the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013:
• (i) Whether the word “or” in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 used in between
possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid to be read
as “and”?
• (ii) Whether proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 has to be construed as
part thereof or proviso to Section 24(1)(b)?
• (iii) What meaning is to be given to the word "paid" used in Section 24(2) and
"deposited" used in the proviso to Section 24(2)?
• (iv) What are the consequences of payment not made?
• (v) What are the consequences of the amount not deposited?
• (vi) What is the effect of a person refusing to accept the compensation?

09/28/2022 201
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• Section 24 (1) (a) contemplates that where no award under Section 11 of the LA
Act has been made, but proceedings had been initiated under said Act,
provisions of the Act of 2013 would apply limited to the determination of
compensation. In other words, the entire exercise de novo, under the Act of
2013, will not be required to be undertaken. Therefore, Section 24 (1) (a)
contemplates a limited applicability of the Act of 2013. Section 24 (1) (b)
stipulates that where an award under Section 11 of the LA Act has been made,
the entire proceedings would continue under that law and the provisions of the
Act of 2013 would be inapplicable. Section 24 (1) (b) is the larger umbrella clause
under Section 24, which protects the vested rights of the parties under the LA
Act if the stage of passing of award has been crossed. It is argued that the
umbrella clause Section 24 (1) (b), is followed by Section 24(2) - which provides
for the exclusionary clause. Section 24 (2), the learned SG highlighted, is the only
lapsing clause under the provision which brings in the rigours of the Act of 2013
in totality by mandating the land acquisition to be initiated de novo.

09/28/2022 202
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• It is submitted that the contingencies for lapsing in

Section 24(2), are subject to an award under Section 11 of
the LA Act being made five years prior to the
commencement of the Act of 2013 (which is 1.1.2014). If
the award is so made, two contingencies result in
complete lapse -: (a) Physical possession of the land has
not been taken; or (b) compensation has not been “paid”.
The provision for lapse, per Section 24(2) is, by its nature,
a vital provision, inviting serious consequences, in case
those contingencies arise. It is the interpretation of these
“contingencies” that requires further consideration.

09/28/2022 203
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• The context of Section 24, is to provide for a transitory provision viz.

to take care of the pending land acquisition proceedings which are
ongoing under the LA Act when the Act of 2013 is brought into
force w.e.f. 1.1.2014. The purpose and object of making this
provision is to balance the competing rights of public projects vis-à-
vis holders of the land. The object and purpose was to ensure that
where acquisition proceedings under LA Act have reached an
advanced stage and investment of public money had already been
made, firstly, the lapsing of such ongoing projects should be
avoided and secondly as far as possible, the land owners also can,
without disturbing the process of acquisition, be given the
compensation under the Act of 2013.

09/28/2022 204
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• The learned counsel argued that Parliament did not expect the
acquiring authority to perform an impossible task of forcing
payment to the land owners unwilling, for any reason to
accept it. The legislature, therefore, does not use the
expression of the land owners having “accepted” the payment.
It merely uses the expression “paid”. The legislature clearly
tries to balance the rights of land owners only in one
contingency viz. in a post award scenario and the award having
been made five years prior to 1.1.2014, when the amount is not
“deposited” in the accounts of the majority of the beneficiaries.

09/28/2022 205
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession

and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The
deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under
Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to
inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to
commencement of the said Act, the possession of land
has not been taken nor compensation has been paid. In
other words, in case possession has been taken,
compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse.
Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has
not been taken then there is no lapse.

09/28/2022 206
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• In case a person has been tendered the compensation

as provided under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1894, it is
not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed
under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-
deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay
is complete by tendering the amount under Section
31(1). Land owners who had refused to accept
compensation or who sought reference for higher
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition
proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act
of 2013.
09/28/2022 207
 INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ….PETITIONER
VERSUS MANOHARLAL & ORS. ETC. 2020

• Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not give rise to

new cause of action to question the legality of
concluded proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24
applies to a proceeding pending on the date of
enforcement of the Act of 2013, i.e., 1.1.2014. It does
not revive and time-barred claims and does not reopen
concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to
question the legality of mode of taking possession to
reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of
compensation in the treasury instead of court to
invalidate acquisition.
09/28/2022 208
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• One of the marked improvements of the LARR Act over the

previous Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the shift in focus from
compensation to rehabilitation and resettlement. The earlier
law was solely focused on providing compensation and, in
some cases, a solatium. However, in the LARR Act, the focus
has shifted to rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced
persons. The SIA reports, as discussed above, must include
the impact of the acquisition on the lives and livelihoods of
the affected families, their community and social life,
infrastructure and public utilities. This makes estimation of
rehabilitation and resettlement easier. Once the impacts of
the acquisition on the affected families and communities are
evident, the rehabilitation and resettlement plans can be
made accordingly.
09/28/2022 209
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement
• Secondly, Chapter V of the LARR Act mandates
that the possession of the land can be taken
only after the payment of full compensation
and notification of rehabilitation and
resettlement award. The Collector has been
made responsible to ensure that the
rehabilitation and resettlement scheme for
each family is completed in all respects before
the families are displaced.
09/28/2022 210
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• Thirdly, the process of preparation of rehabilitation and

resettlement scheme also includes notices for public
hearings and public representations. Here again the
approach of the law is to ensure that the relevant
stakeholders are not left out of the process and have
their say in the process. This provision empowers the
Project-affected-Families to raise objections, submit
claims for rehabilitation and resettlement and ensure
that adverse social impacts are managed and the needs
of the community are addressed.

09/28/2022 211
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• Special provision for Schedule Tribes and Scheduled Castes

• The Act states that, as far as possible, land shall not be
acquired in Scheduled Areas under the Fifth Schedule of
the Constitution. If acquired, it should be a demonstrable
last resort. The prior consent of the concerned Gram Sabha,
Panchayat or the autonomous District Councils must be
obtained even if the land is sought to be acquired under the
urgency clause. In case of involuntary displacement of SC
and ST families, a Development Plan shall be prepared
incorporating measures safeguarding their special needs
and interests.

09/28/2022 212
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• Private Purchase
• Since the enactment of the LARR Act, 2013, it is seen that the
private purchase of land has gained greater popularity, considering
the relatively easier process of purchasing land directly from land
owners willing to sell their land. Further, the purchase of land is
preferred over leasing when permanent infrastructure is required to
be developed. Typically, the developer purchases land from the
owners under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 provides that the right, title, or interest in an
immovable property (or land) can be transferred only by a
registered instrument. The Registration Act, 1908, is the primary
law that regulates the registration of land related documents.

09/28/2022 213
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• One of the major challenges of purchasing land directly is the absence of

clear land titles. Nearly 67% of litigants in civil cases are approaching the
judiciary for land or property related cases, mostly as a result of
difficulty in establishing ownership of land. In this context, the
Committee on Financial Sector Reforms (FSRC) had, in 2009,
recommended moving from a presumptive to a conclusive titling system.
Guaranteed title systems have been developed an adopted in countries
such as Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and Singapore. To
improve the quality of land records, and make them more accessible,
the central government introduced the Digital India Land Records
Modernization Programme. The programme seeks to achieve complete
computerization of the property registration process and digitization of
all land records. However, the pace of digitization of records has been
slow.

09/28/2022 214
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• One outcome of India’s tryst with development has been the

large scale displacement of its population. It has been
estimated that 50 million people have been involuntarily
displaced in the last fifty years. Another report contends that
development-induced displacement accounts for 60 million
people if the number of those who lost their livelihood by
virtue of their dependence on the acquired land are also
included . The risks most commonly associated with
involuntary displacement are landlessness, homelessness,
marginalization, joblessness, increased morbidity, food
security, loss of access to food security and social
disarticulation

09/28/2022 215
 ‘Rehabilitation of Project-Affected-
Families: experience of livelihood
restoration’
• Prior to the enactment of The RFCTLARR Act, 2013, India did
not have a national law on Rehabilitation and Resettlement.
Several state governments such as Haryana, Jharkhand, and
Odisha, as well as some Public Sector Undertakings that
required land for their business operations had framed R&R
policies. However, R&R planning and execution lacked focus,
resulting in unsatisfactory outcomes for the affected people.
This was a result of various factors – noninvolvement of
displaced people in the planning and execution process,
flawed planning, poor provision of basic amenities such as
safe drinking water and sanitation, lack of foresight in the
choice of host communities resulting in conflicts, grant of
unproductive land at new locations and the challenge of
creating income generation activities.
09/28/2022 216
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• National Policy on Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2003; National

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007
• The first national level rehabilitation policy was made in 2003 - the
National Policy on Rehabilitation and Resettlement for Project
Affected Families. It provided that if there was a displacement of
500 families or more in the plain areas, and 250 or more in certain
specific areas such as hilly area or those falling under Schedule V and
VI of the Constitution, then the District Collector would be appointed
as an administrator to oversee the preparation, and implementation
of an adequate rehabilitation plan for project oustees. The Policy
favoured consultation with representatives of the project affected
families, including women and members of elected Panchayati Raj
Institutions within which the project area is located.

09/28/2022 217
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• In 2007, the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy was

notified by the Ministry of Rural Development. Under this,
employment or cash compensation or a onetime cash grant or
financial package was available to those whose land was acquired, as
decided by state governments. In lieu of employment, a monetary
compensation was to be given. Through this policy, provisions were
made for assessing the social impacts of the project on communities
residing in the area to be acquired. The preparation of a
rehabilitation plan required the consideration of the socio- cultural
characteristics of the affected people. The provisions of the National
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007 were applicable if a
project affected 400 families or more in plains, and 200 or more
families in tribal or hilly areas, and certain other specified areas.

09/28/2022 218
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• R&R policies of state governments and PSU

• Several public sector undertakings, state governments and project
authorities had designed their own R&R policies much before the
National R&R Policies were framed. For example, Coal India Ltd (CIL) had
formulated its R&R policy in 1994, which was modified in 2012, by
inserting the provisions of National Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Policy, 2007, and the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Bill, 2011. The National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) developed its
R&R Policy in 1983, which was later revised in 2017, after adding the
benefits mandated under The RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Odisha framed the
‘Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy’, in 2006, prior to which it
responded to problems of displacement through project specific R&R
policies and plans. Haryana formulated a ‘Policy for Rehabilitation and
Resettlement of Land Owners-Land Acquisition Oustees’ in 2007

09/28/2022 219
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• This policy laid down guidelines for the

allotment of plots by the Haryana Urban
Development Authority (HUDA) to land loosers.
On its part, HUDA had framed its Oustee Policy
in 1987, in 2010, it adopted the provisions of
the Haryana R&R policy of 2007. In 2008,
Jharkhand formulated the state R&R Policy, by
incorporating the provisions of the National
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007.
09/28/2022 220
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• RFCTLARR Act, 2013

• The RFCTLARR Act, 2013 incorporated several
provisions of the aforementioned R&R policies. The Act
provides that the Collector shall pass the R&R awards
with respect to each affected family in accordance with
the R&R entitlements mentioned in Schedule II and III of
the Act. A list of 25 infrastructural facilities and
amenities have been identified for provisioning in the
resettlement area, to ensure a reasonable standard of
living for the relocated families.

09/28/2022 221
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• The Second Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 offers the

following entitlements to the affected families (which is
defined to include families whose land are acquired as
well as families whose livelihood is primarily dependent on
the acquired tract of land), depending on the nature of the
projects: housing units, land for land (as far as possible in
irrigation projects, and in lieu of compensation), offer of
developed land (in case of urbanization projects), choice
of one-time payment of Rs 500000/- or annuity for twenty
years or employment to one family member, subsistence
grants to displaced families for a period of one year etc.

09/28/2022 222
 Rehabilitation and Resettlement

• Though, The RFCTLARR Act, 2013 has enacted comprehensive

measures for the rehabilitation and resettlement of P-A-Fs, but this
aspect of law has not quite received the attention it deserves. There
are not too many stories of successful rehabilitation of affected
people. For the most part, the land acquisition process is deemed to
be complete, particularly from the standpoint of Project Proponents,
when the possession of land is obtained. However, for uninterrupted
operations, businesses would do well to win the trust and acceptance
of the local communities, a significant part of which would come
from restoring the income earning capacities of the affected families.
With scarce resource base, limited education and inadequate skills,
the tribal and rural communities affected by land acquisition require
special assistance to become economically self reliant.

09/28/2022 223