Righting wrongs in land acquisition

Righting wrongs in land acquisition

Context:

Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is in news

About the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

• The law provided for greatly enhanced compensation, consent of those whose land was sought to be acquired
• It also provided detailed rehabilitation and resettlement provisions, including employment, land for land, and other beneficial schemes
• It also included a retrospective clause: Section 24 of the new Act provided that under certain circumstances, acquired land could be returned to affected families.

Section 24:

What are the cases in which land could be returned to the original owners?

The first category:

• It would comprise of those for whom the land acquisition award had been made less than five years prior to the coming into force of the new law (before January 1, 2014 and after January 1, 2009).
• In such cases, the new law would not apply; the proceedings would continue under the old law.

Second Category:

• It would be where the award had not been made (on the date of the new law coming into force) but the acquisition proceedings had been initiated.
• In such cases, the land owners would be entitled to enhanced compensation and all other rehabilitation and resettlement benefits as provided under the new law, but the acquisition process would continue under the 1894 Act.

Third Category:

• The third category would comprise of the cases of those for whom the land acquisition award had been made five years (or more) prior to the new law coming into force and where either compensation had not been paid or there had been no physical possession of the land.
• It was reasoned that five years was enough time for the acquiring authority to resolve all disputes, failing which it made no sense to hold on to the land.

Ordinance to make Section 24 inoperative:

• The current government brought in an ordinance on January 1, 2015 to render this Section inoperative
• However, on August 30, 2016 Prime Minister Modi announced the withdrawal of the amendments proposed by his government.

Recent in news:

• The Supreme Court, in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (February 2018), has effectively implemented the provisions of the lapsed ordinance with regard to the retrospective clause.
• Given that it is at variance with other Benches on the issue, this has now led to the constitution of a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court to decide whether the Section has to be interpreted expansively or in a narrow sense.

Implication of the Supreme Court decision in the Indore case:

• It relaxes the existing definition of compensation paid from the active requirement of offering the compensation and depositing the same in court
• On the subject of physical possession, it lays down that the period where the government is prevented from taking possession of the land due to the operation of a stay order or injunction shall not be counted towards the stipulated five-year requirement.