In Brief
This case concerns the interpretation of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, specifically whether a proviso applies to Section 24(1)(b) or Section 24(2). The Supreme Court held that the proviso is part of Section 24(1)(b), providing an exception whereby landowners are entitled to enhanced compensation under the 2013 Act even when an award was made under the repealed 1894 Act, if compensation for a majority of holdings has not been deposited. The Court rejected the interpretation that the proviso applies to Section 24(2) (which addresses lapsing of acquisition proceedings), finding it would arbitrarily nullify the lapsing provision and violate property rights. The Court approved lapsing where awards made five years before the 2013 Act's commencement have not been completed by possession or compensation payment.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.