JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

MAULANA MOHAMMAD ALI JAUHAR MARG, NEW DELHI-25

Session- 2019-20

FACULTY OF LAW
LAND LAWS ASSIGNMENT

On

“COMPENSATION, PAYMENT AND RETURN

OF UNUTILISED LAND”

GUIDED BY: - SUBMITTED BY: -

Prof. Kahkashan Y. Danyal SYED KASHIF HASAN
SECTION: A
CLASS ROLL NO. 35
IX SEMESTER

1
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Firstly, I would like to express my profound sense of gratitude towards the Almighty “ALLAH”
for providing me with the authentic circumstances which were mandatory for the completion
of my research work.

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my teacher Prof. Kahkashan Y. Danyal, for
her esteemed guidance and supervision. I am obliged to him for giving me the opportunity to
work on this Project. I am thankful to her for her invaluable support, encouragement,
supervision and useful suggestions throughout this research work. Her moral support and
continuous guidance enabled me to complete my work successfully. Her intellectual thrust and
blessings motivated me to work rigorously on this study. In fact, this study could not have seen
the light of the day if her contribution had not been available. It would be no exaggeration to
say that it is her unflinching faith and unquestioning support that has provided the sustenance
necessary to see it through to its present shape.

I would also like to thank my friends for providing me with valuable inputs on the topic. I am
thankful for their aspiring guidance, invaluably constructive criticism and friendly advice
during the project work. I am sincerely grateful to them for sharing their truthful and
illuminating views on a number of issues related to the project.

2
INTRODUCTION
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (also Land Acquisition Act, 2013) is an Act of Indian Parliament that
regulates land acquisition and lays down the procedure and rules for granting compensation,
rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected persons in India. The Act has provisions to
provide fair compensation to those whose land is taken away, brings transparency to the process
of acquisition of land to set up factories or buildings, infrastructural projects and assures
rehabilitation of those affected. The Act establishes regulations for land acquisition as a part of
India's massive industrialisation drive driven by public-private partnership. The Act replaced
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a nearly 120-year-old law enacted during British rule.

The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 was introduced in Lok Sabha
on 7 September 2011. The bill was then passed by it on 29 August 2013 and by Rajya Sabha
on 4 September 2013. The bill then received the assent of the President of India, Pranab
Mukherjee on 27 September 2013.[4] The Act came into force from 1 January 2014.

An amendment bill was then introduced in Parliament to endorse the Ordinance. Lok Sabha
passed the bill but the same is still lying for passage by the Rajya Sabha. On 30 May 2015,
President of India promulgated the amendment ordinance for third time.

This land acquisition rehabilitation and resettlement act 2013 has brought out many changes in
Indian land acquisition law. The most primary thing among that is it is providing an immense
increased compensation for the owners who are affected and also recognised as landowners.
Specifically to say the compensation was raised to 4 times the local market value of land in all
rural areas and urban areas it was released twice than the local market value. The other
compulsory thing this act brings out is that all the affected parties will be paid a rehabilitation
and resettlement package in which includes compensation and replacement cost for their
projects. If the person is affected then it defines that the person’s families and their source of
lovely hood will be discussed and it also be included in the benefits according to the act. This
rehabilitation and resettlement package for the affected farmers and landowners had variety of
beneficiary activities like monthly stipend, job for one family member, transportation controls
etc. as various settlements. There was a compulsory rule that the rehabilitation and resettlement
package give a cash of 6.5 lakhs for every affected family and the benefits continues as housing
land for land for irrigation and their own processes.

3
BACKGROUND

HISTORY
The history of land acquisition began with the Bengal Regulation I of 1824 to promote British
commercial interests. Land for construction of Railways was acquired under the said
Regulation and finally the first Railway came up in 1853. The Bengal Regulation I of 1824
was replaced by Act I of 1850, by which the provision for land acquisition was extended to
Calcutta town. By 1857, various laws on land acquisition were consolidated as Act VI of 1857
and it was made applicable to the whole of British India. The 1857 Act was replaced by the
Land Acquisition Act (Act X of 1870). However, as noted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Radhey Shyam(D) Through LRs and others v. State of U.P. and others,2 the Act was
ineffective. The Act of 1870 was repealed and the Act of 1894 was enacted for the purpose of
facilitating acquisition of private land by the Government for public purposes. But the Act of
1894 did not provide any opportunity to the landowners/persons having interest in land to raise
objection against the acquisition of land. Their objections were confined to the amount of
compensation and matters connected thereto. Absence of opportunity to the landowners to raise
objections to the acquisition led to largescale resentment among the landowners. This further
led to the amendment of the 1894 Act in 1923 by which Section 5A was added under which
any person interested in land which was needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or
for a Company, could within 30 days from the date of publication of the Notification under
Section 4(1), file objections to the acquisition of the land plus under 5A (2), an opportunity of
being heard was to be provided by the Collector to the person interested in the land. By this
amendment, audi alterem partem which is the cardinal principle of Natural Justice was
incorporated into the process of acquisition under the 1894 Act.

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was a British era law that governed the process of land
acquisition in India until 2013 and continues to do so in Pakistan and Myanmar. It allows the
acquisition of land for some public purpose by a government agency from individual
landowners after paying a government-determined compensation to cover losses incurred by
landowners from surrendering their land to the agency. In India, a new Act, The Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, replaced this law.

4
NEED
The Government of India believed there was a heightened public concern on land acquisition
issues in India. Of particular concern was that despite many amendments, over the years, to
India's Land Acquisition Act of 1894, there was an absence of a cohesive national law that
addressed fair compensation when private land is acquired for public use, and fair rehabilitation
of land owners and those directly affected from loss of livelihoods. The Government of India
believed that a combined law was necessary, one that legally requires rehabilitation and
resettlement necessarily and simultaneously follow government acquisition of land for public
purposes.

Forty-Fourth Amendment Act of 1978 omitted Art 19(1) (f) with the net result being:-

The right not to be deprived of one's property save by authority of law has since been no longer
a fundamental right. "No person shall be deprived of his property saved by authority of law"
(Constitution 44th Amendment, w.e.f. 10.6.1979). The amendment ensured that the right to
property‟ is no more a fundamental right but rather a constitutional/legal right/as a statutory
right and in the event of breach, the remedy available to an aggrieved person is through the
High Court under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution and not the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution. .

Moreover, no one can challenge the reasonableness of the restriction imposed by any law the
legislature made to deprive the person of his property.

State must pay compensation at the market value for such land, building or structure acquired
(Inserted by Constitution, Seventeenth Amendment Act, 1964), the same can be found in the
earlier rulings when property right was a fundamental right (such as 1954 AIR 170, 1954 SCR
558, which propounded that the word "Compensation" deployed in Article 31(2) implied full
compensation, that is the market value of the property at the time of the acquisition. The
Legislature must "ensure that what is determined as payable must be compensation, that is, a
just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of"). Elsewhere, Justice, Reddy, O
Chinnappa ruled (State Of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan Tale on 7 July 1983) that the
fundamental right to property has been abolished because of its incompatibility with the goals
of "justice" social, economic and political and "equality of status and of opportunity" and with
the establishment of "a socialist democratic republic, as contemplated by the Constitution.

5
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The aims and objectives of the Act include:

To ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self-government and Gram Sabhas

established under the Constitution of India, a humane, participative, informed and transparent
process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural
facilities and urbanisation 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
proposed to be acquired or are affected by such acquisition

Make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement

Ensure that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons
become partners in development leading to an improvement in their post acquisition social and
economic status and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The Act aims to establish the law on land acquisition, as well as the rehabilitation and
resettlement of those directly affected by the land acquisition in India. The scope of the Act
includes all land acquisition whether it is done by the Central Government of India, or any
State Government of India, except the state of Jammu & Kashmir.

The Act is applicable when:

Government acquires land for its own use, hold and control, including land for Public sector
undertakings.

Government acquires land with the ultimate purpose to transfer it for the use of private
companies for stated public purpose. The purpose of LARR 2011 includes public-private-
partnership projects, but excludes land acquired for state or national highway projects.

Government acquires land for immediate and declared use by private companies for public
purpose.

The provisions of the Act does not apply to acquisitions under 16 existing legislations including
the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, the Railways Act, 1989,
etc.

6
DRAWBACKS OF THE 1894 ACT
The main negative impact of Land acquisition act 1894 is urgency clause. The wrong use of
section 17 of the act by the state government was the main issue for the drawback. If a land
owner is affected he can file objections under section 5A of the act against the activities done
and it is a basic right for the land owners and also according to the natural justice- Audi alteram
partem. But they were numerous cases where the state government have acquired land buy the
wrong use of section 17 (4) which is urgency clause. Accordingly the state government made
as if they cannot apply and it should take away their basic right of the land owners to file is
objections. Hence state government misused power for the wrong use of the provisions of
urgency. This was the main drawback and the disadvantage of land acquisition act due to the
misuse of urgency clause by the state governments. One of the obstacles in the plan of Section
18 is that the Collector has no capacity to approve delay in moving a reference application,
despite the way that the individual intrigued has been kept from moving it in time by virtue of
true blue or unavoidable reasons. For a significant long time, there was a difference of legal
feeling with regards to the Collector's capacity to support delay. Collector has no right to
postpone the period time or do any of it as in case Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition)
v. Shah Manilal Chandulal.

7
COMPENSATION UNDER THE 2013 LAND ACQUISITION ACT
Under the old Act, possession could be taken without satisfactorily compensating or
resettling the families. But under the 2013 Act, the Collector can take possession of the land
only after ensuring the full payment of compensation including the rehabilitation and
resettlement entitlements to the entitled persons. Under the 2013 Act, the amount of
Compensation must be sufficiently fair so as to justify the forcible acquisition of land. Under
the 1894 Act, compensation was required to be paid at market value. But as discussed earlier,
quantum and basis for determining market value was the root cause of a number of disputes,
injustices to the landowners and litigation. The Court has also recognized in Ram Jiyawan v.
State of Uttar Pradesh the importance of paying compensation as “Acquisition without
payment of compensation is violative of Article 14”. Compensation provisions are contained
in Sections 26-30, 39 and the First Schedule of the Act. Section 26 provides for determination
of the market value of the land by the Collector according to the criteria mentioned therein
which lays down “(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1889 for the
registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell;” or “(b) the average sale price for similar type
of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area;” or “(c) consented amount of
compensation in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private
partnership projects.” The Act provides a method for calculating the average sale price
referred to in clause (b). It shall be “determined taking into account the sale deeds or the
agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near village or near vicinity area
during immediately preceding three years of the year in which such acquisition of land is
proposed to be made.” The market value calculated as average of the last three years on the
basis of the Collector’s rate or the sale deeds, is to be multiplied by a factor to be specified in
the First Schedule. Multiplying factor mentioned in First Schedule in case of rural areas is
1.00 (One) to 2.00 (Two) based on the distance of the project from urban area as may be
notified by the government. In the case of urban areas, multiplying factor is only one. Section
30 provides for award of solatium (compensation for emotional harm caused) and the manner
of determination of solatium is provided under the First Schedule. It has to be paid in addition
to the compensation payable to any person whose land has been acquired. The Collector
having determined the total compensation to be paid, to arrive at the final award, impose a
solatium equivalent to 100% of the compensation paid. Solatium is not a new concept as it
had already existed under the 1894 Act, in which by the 1984 amendment, affected
individuals were required to be paid an additional 30% of the market value in consideration

8
of the compulsory nature of the acquisition [Section 23(2) of the 1894 Act]. Hence under the
2013 Act, the landowner will get the full compensation as calculated above while the
compensation to be paid to the affected families as referred to in clause (c) of Section 3 shall
be in proportion to be decided by the appropriate government. In addition to the market value
of the land under Section 26, the Collector shall award under Section 30(3), an amount at the
rate of 12% per annum on such market value for the period from the date of publication of the
Notification of the Social Impact Assessment Report till the date of award of the Collector or
the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier.
The 2013 Act provides that the 1894 Act will continue to apply in certain cases where an
award has been made under the 1894 Act. Section 24 makes provision for application of the
provisions of the 2013 Act to land acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act as
follows: 1. “If no award has been made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, then all provisions
of the 2013 Act relating to compensation shall apply [Section 24(1)(a);” 2. “Where an award
under Section11 of the 1894 Act has been passed, then such proceedings shall continue under
the provisions of the 1894 Act, as if the Act has not been repealed [Section 24(1)(b);” 4.
“Where an award has been made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act and compensation in
respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the
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 the
2013 Act [proviso to Section 24(2)].” Section 24(2) came as a ray of hope for a number of
farmers whose land was acquired by the respective state governments number of years ago
and the award was made five years or more prior the 2013 Act, but in case the physical
possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid, the
acquisition shall lapse or stand cancelled. These farmers found the ‘retrospective clause’ or
Section 24(2) a great respite as they could benefit from the provision and get justice.

Compensation varies with the market rates. In the case of rural area, it is four times the
market rate and for an urban area, it is two times. Affected artisans, small traders, fisherman
etc. by the land acquisition are given one-time payment even if they do not own any land.
There is also provision for rehabilitation and resettlement award which includes employment
to one member of an affected family.

9
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION UNDER THE 2013 LAND
ACQUISITION ACT
Section 77 to 80 of the act deals with the method of payment of compensation.
Section 77. Payment of compensation or deposit of same in Authority.–
(1) On making an award under section 30, 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 by depositing the amount in their bank accounts unless
prevented by someone or more of the contingencies mentioned in sub-section (2).
(2) If the person entitled to compensation 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 Authority to which a reference under section 64 would be submitted:
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as
to the sufficiency of the amount:
Provided further that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest
shall be entitled to make any application under sub-section (1) of section 64:
Provided also that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may
receive the whole or any part of any compensation awarded under this Act, to pay the same to
the person lawfully entitled thereto.

Section 78. Investment of money deposited in respect of lands belonging to person

incompetent to alienate.–
(1) If any money is deposited in the Authority concerned under sub-section (2) of section 77
and it appears that the land in respect whereof the same was awarded belonged to any person
who had no power to alienate the same, the Authority concerned shall—
(a) Order the money to be invested in the purchase of other lands to be held under the like
title and conditions of ownership as the land in respect of which such money shall have been
deposited was held; or
(b) If such purchase cannot be effected forthwith, then in such Government of other approved
securities as the Authority concerned shall think fit,
And shall direct the payment of the interest or other proceeds arising from such investment to
the person or persons who would for the time being have been entitled to the possession of

10
the said land, and such moneys shall remain so deposited and invested until the same be
applied—
(i) in the purchase of such other lands as aforesaid; or
(ii) in payment to any person or persons becoming absolutely entitled thereto.
(2) In all cases of money deposited to which this section applies the Authority concerned
shall order the costs of the following matters, including therein all reasonable charge and
expenses incident thereon, to be paid by the Collector, namely:—
(a) the costs of such investments as aforesaid;
(b) the costs of the orders for the payment of the interest or other proceeds of the securities
upon which such moneys are for the time being invested, and for the payment out of the
Authority concerned of the principal of such moneys, and of all proceedings relating thereto,
except such as may be occasioned by litigation between adverse claimants.
Section 79. Investment of money deposited in other cases.–
When any money shall have been deposited in the Authority concerned under this Act for any
cause other than the causes mentioned in section 78, the Authority may, on the application of
any party interested or claiming an interest in such money, order the same to be invested in
such Government or other approved securities as it may think proper, and paid in such
manner as it may consider will give the parties interested therein the same benefit from it as
they might have had from the land in respect whereof such money shall have been deposited
or as near thereto as may be.

Section 80. Payment of interest.–

When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking
possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the
rate of nine per cent. per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been
so paid or deposited: Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or
deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at
the rate of fifteen per cent. per annum shall be payable from the date or expiry of the said
period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or
deposited before the date of such expiry.

11
RETURN OF UNUTILIZED LAND UNDER THE 2013 LAND
ACQUISITION ACT
Section 101 of the act deals with return of unutilized land.

101. Return of unutilised land. – When any land acquired under this Act remains unutilised
for a period of five years from the date of taking over the possession, the same shall be returned
to the original owner or owners or their legal heirs, as the case may be, or to the Land Bank of
the appropriate Government by reversion in the manner as may be prescribed by the appropriate
Government. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, "Land Bank" means a
governmental entity that focuses on the conversion of Government owned vacant, abandoned,
unutilised acquired lands and tax-delinquent properties into productive use.

The LARR Act 2013 required that if land acquired under it remained unutilised for five years,
it was returned to the original owners or the land bank. The Ordinance states that the period
after which unutilised land will need to be returned will be five years, or any period specified
at the time of setting up the project, whichever is later.

DRAWBACKS OF THE 2013 ACT

The 2013 Act although far better than its earlier counterparts is not perfect and has a number
of drawbacks. Some of which are enumerated as under.

1. Regarding determination of the market value by the Collector under Section 26(b), the
market value calculated as average of the last three years on the basis of the sale deeds, is to be
multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule. Multiplying factor mentioned here
in case of rural areas is 1.00 to 2.00 based on the distance of the project from urban area as may
be notified by the government. In the case of urban area, multiplying factor is only 1.00.
Compensation has to be paid to the landowners on the basis of the market value of the land. In
India, it is really difficult to calculate the market value because of a running parallel economy
involving black money, cash transactions often made with black money, corruption in the form
of understating the market value in the sale documents to avoid payment of stamp duty at the
time of registration of the sale deed. All this leads to a loss to the landowner as the government
steps into the shoes of the landowner at the time of acquisition and pays only a small amount
of compensation which is below the actual sale price.

2. The 2013 Act provides for Rehabilitation and Resettlement, a commendable step for the first
time in India’s legislative history, that a law on land acquisition has been tied up with the

12
necessity to carry out rehabilitation and resettlement. But in case of land which is temporarily
acquired, there is no such policy of rehabilitation and resettlement.

3. Under Section 2(2) (a) and (b), the provisions of the Act relating to ‘prior consent’ of the
‘affected families’ apply where the land is acquired for public partnership project or for a
private company (both for a public purpose). This means that in these cases, the landowners
can refuse to part with their lands by refusing to give the appropriate percentage of ‘prior
consent.’ But when the land is acquired by the government for its own use, hold and control,
including for PSUs and for public purpose under Section 2(1), ‘prior consent’ of the affected
families is not required to be taken. That is, when the government acquires land for its own
use, prior consent of the affected families is not required. It is a forcible acquisition by the
government in which the landowners have no say at all and they cannot refuse to part with their
land.

4. The State governments have objected to the Chapter III of the 2013Act dealing with
acquisition of agricultural land that since ‘transfer and alienation of agricultural land’ comes
under the purview of the State List, Entry 18, it is only the State Legislatures who have a right
to legislate on this matter. 5. The 2013 Act exempts the application of the provisions of the Act
to certain enactments dealing with land acquisition like the Railways Act, 1989, The Electricity
Act, 2003, The National Highways Act, 1956 (all the 13 enactments specified under the Fourth
Schedule).

13
JUDICIAL APPROACH ON THE RETROSPECTIVE CLAUSE
The very first case on the ‘retrospective clause’ was Pune Municipal Corporation v.
Harakchand Solanki wherein eighteen appeals were filed before the Supreme Court invoking
the application of the retrospective clause. In all the applications, a period of five or more years
had passed since the land acquisition award had been made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act
and the applicants had refused to accept the compensation. The respondents, the Pune
Municipal Corporation (the acquiring authority) argued that they had deposited the amount in
the treasury of the government in fulfilment of their obligation and had therefore satisfied the
requirement of paying compensation. The Court held that compensation would only be deemed
to have been paid if it had been deposited with the Court and after having been offered to the
individual concerned. In this case, the compensation had only been deposited in the treasury.
As a result, compensation could not be deemed to have been paid and the acquisition was
considered to have lapsed in conformity with Section 24 of the 2013 Act. This was followed
by a spate of judgments of the Supreme Court. In Bharat Kumar v. State of Haryana a similar
judgment was pronounced. In the case of Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana award had been
passed in 1995 and the parties had still not accepted compensation or parted with possession.
The Court relying on the ‘retrospective clause’ ordered the return of the land to the original
owners. This was followed by the case of Shiv Raj v. Union of India in which the Court ordered
the return of the land to its original owners who were fighting the case for the last two decades
and held that the acquisition had lapsed. Coming to the position of Delhi and NCR region: “In
a series of judgments pronounced in recent months (as late as March), the Delhi High Court
has scrapped acquisition of several acres of land in Delhi by government agencies, some of
them dating back to 1986. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) officials told TOI about 150
such judgments have come and the total land that could be released would be at least 100
acres.” In the case of Jagjit Singh v. Union of India the Delhi High Court quashed a number of
pending acquisitions by the Delhi Development Authority as it was found that the parties had
satisfied the terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. This was followed by other judgments like
Surender Singh v. Union of India, Girish Chabra v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Raman Grover v.
Union of India and Ashwal Vaderra v. Union of India continued to add to the growing
jurisprudence on the interpretation and application of Section 24(2) benefitting the landowners
and farmers. By the Gazette of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, an Ordinance titled as “The
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014, a second proviso to Section 24(2) was inserted

14
which is as follows: “Provided further that in computing the period referred to in Sub-section,
any period or periods during which the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on
account of any stay or injunction, issued by any Court or the period specified in the award of
any Tribunal for taking possession or such period where possession has been taken but the
compensation is lying deposited in a Court or in any account maintained for this purpose shall
be excluded.”

This proviso was argued by the government agencies such as DDA, MCD and L&DO but the
High Court of Delhi cited the Supreme Court judgment in M/s. Radiance Fincap (P) ltd. and
others v. Union of India and others wherein the Court held: “The said Ordinance is prospective
in nature and the rights created in favour of the petitioners on 01/01/2014 by virtue of the 2013
Act are undisturbed by the second proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act which has been
introduced by the Ordinance. This view was reinforced in the case of Karnail Kaur and others
v. State of Punjab and others in which again it was reiterated that: “The Ordinance in so far as
insertion of proviso to the Section 24(2) by way of an amendment is prospective….The right
of appeal is a vested right….which can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment if it so
provides expressly or by necessary intendment and not otherwise.” Thus, the Court held that
the right conferred to the landowners of the acquired land under Section 24(2) of the Act is a
statutory right and therefore, cannot be taken away by an Ordinance by inserting the above
proviso and giving it a retrospective effect. The Ordinance will not have retrospective effect
but it has a prospective effect. In J. L. Sarna v. Union of India DDA pleaded helplessness in
taking possession pointing out that they were unable to do so as there was a court stay. The
Court held: “These conditions [in Section 24(2) of the Act] 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 should have been expressly spelt out.” In Surjan
Singh v. Union of India DDA argued that compensation payable to landowners was deposited
in the treasury. In the process, the land-owning agency maintained that it is shielded from
Section 24 and protected by another insertion made in the Ordinance that if the government
deposits money in the treasury without the seller accepting it later, the acquirement process is
valid. In this case, the Delhi High Court held: “In so far as the payment of compensation is
concerned, this much is clear that compensation has not been paid to the petitioner, but has
only been deposited in the treasury, which does not amount to payment of compensation”.

15
CONCLUSION

Land is a precious resource for the farmers and not anything less to any landowner. It is the
most important source of livelihood for the farmers who constitute almost half the labour force
in India. None of them wants to part with their land. The government has to carry out
development work for which land is the basic requirement. The British brought the 1894 Act
which was in its own right a draconian, unjust, archaic legislation. This legislation provided
for compulsory acquisition of land without the consent of the landowners, it only provided for
monetary compensation (determination of which was not satisfactory), there was no provision
for rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced people. This legislation generated a lot of
conflicts as large business groups pressed for land acquisition for their mega projects and the
landowners protested and the protests grew louder with events like Singur and Nandigram.
Finally, the Government enacted the 2013 Act with provisions of just and fair compensation,
rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected families. The effect of land acquisition on the
affected families was to be gauged by a Social Impact assessment before resorting to land
acquisition. It also provided for the return of land to the owners if it remained unutilised for a
period of 5 years. The determination of compensation was to be done under the method
provided under the Act, further enhanced by 100% Solatium. There are many more provisions
which are landowner’s friendly. But there are certain flaws which if removed can make the Act
more just and acceptable. The need of the hour is that a balance should be created between the
needs of the corporate sector which requires land for their projects and the landowners and
farmers. The Government should shelve the idea that development of the country can take place
only through industrialization and creation of more jobs. Agriculture and farming is a very
essential part of our economy which cannot be neglected for the sake of development. Both the
sectors should go hand in hand. Development is of course essential, but at what cost? Not at
the cost of our farmers who have been feeding us, at least. Food security and development,
both are the need of the hour today.

The essential decision about the Land Acquisition Acts in India and its change is that the
Government was on expectation to absorb information by including partners, expanding pay
and making R&R required. Yet, this learning is getting decreased with difficult getaway
courses looked for in new bill of 2015. The change from 1894 to 2013 to 2015 is ending up
improving the achievement of extensive improvement ventures. It is as of now comprehended
that land obtaining turns into an obstruction in the event that it isn't taken care of cautiously

16
and legitimately in this manner influencing venture achievement (Nallathiga 2009). Despite
the fact that changes to prominent space act are required according to the need of great
importance, they have to strike a harmony among 'gainers' and 'failures'; likewise, what is
progressively critical is that the execution of the Acts at ground level from the soul with which
they have been readied. An ever increasing number of corrections will make the bill to arrive
no place because of political restrictions and this political clash may likewise influence the
undertaking achievement.

17
REFERENCES

ACADEMIC REFERENCES

1. Ghatak,Maitreesh., & Ghosh, Pratikshit. (2011), The Land Acquisition Bill: A Critique and
A Proposal, Centre for Development Economics. http://www.cdedse.org/pdf/work204.pdf

2. Prof. Kahkashan Y. Danyal, Land Acquisition in IndiaPast and Present, JLJ. 2016; 2:1-10.

3. Jojan, Alphonso. (2012). Of Platitudes and Million-Dollar Promises – A Critique Of The

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Bill 2011, JILS. http://jils.ac.in/wp-
content/uploads/2012/09/3_alphonso-jojan-c.pdf

4. Morris, Sebastian., & Pandey, Ajay. (2010). The Question of Land and Infrastructure
Development in India: Urgently Required Reforms for Fairness and Infrastructural
Development, Indian Institute of Management, Ahemdabad.
http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/publications/data/2010-03-02Morris.pdf

5. Morris, Sebastian., & Pandey, Ajay. (2007). Towards Reform of Land Acquisition
Framework in India, Indian Institute of Management, Ahemdabad.
http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/assets/snippets/workingpaperpdf/2007-05-04_Morris.pdf

6. Raghuram, G., & Varkkey, B. (2002). Governance issues in Airport Development: Learnings
from Cochin International Airport Ltd, India Infrastructure Report.

7. Goswami, Amlanjyoti. (2012). Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement: Law and
Politics,IIHS.

ONLINE REFERENCES

8. https://www.academia.edu/3743376/Evolution_of_LAws_on_Land_Acquisition_in_I ndia
9. http://archive.financialexpress.com/news/bjp-manifesto-on-infrastructure-narendramodis-
bjp-promises-bullet-trains-100-new-cities/1238819

10.
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013030/news/42537086_1_landacquisition-
act-land-purchase-land-sales

11. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/201315/news/42083755_1_landacquisition-
bills-land-rights-land-deeds

18