India’s Chief Justice S A Bobde said on Monday that more clarity was needed on the constitutional court’s ruling in the case regarding the interpretation of the Land Acquisition Act.
“There are some questions… I will discuss it with my brother judges… Where there is a property that the government has not taken possession or pay compensation, then the acquisition will expire. But if the Government has taken possession but has not paid compensation, the finding (in the judgment) is that the acquisition does not expire and will continue … But how long … forever? Asked the CJI.
The court, also composed of judges A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian, was hearing some individual petitions that involve the interpretation of article 24 (2) of the law.
These individual petitions will be decided on the basis of the ruling issued by a constitutional court headed by (retired) judge Arun Mishra in March this year.
Responding to the court’s query, Attorney General Tushar Mehta said that “there were several pending cases with a different factual situation and the constitutional court trial will work differently depending on the facts of each one … such as the date of taking possession, nature of possession, award date, etc. ”.
The court said it will consider the matter after two weeks.
The constitutional ruling had held that the procedures under the 1984 Land Acquisition Act would not lapse if compensation payable to the landowner is tendered by a deposit in the treasury, even if the landowner refuses to accept it.
It said that the presumed expiration of the land acquisition procedures under the section will occur only “when, due to inaction by the authorities for five years or more prior to the commencement of said law, possession of the land has not been taken. nor has compensation been paid. ”
“In other words, if possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid, then there is no lapse. In the same way, if compensation has been paid, no possession has been taken, then there is no lapse, ”said the March ruling.
Section 24 (2) of the Act said that an acquisition would lapse if physical possession of the land has not been taken “or” compensation has not been paid.
But the Banco de la Constitución said the word “or” should be read as “and”, meaning that the acquisition will expire only if physical possession has not been taken “and” compensation has not been paid.
The conflicting decisions of two banks in the matter had accumulated in a row in early 2018, forcing the high court to refer it to a five-judge constitutional court.
She is a freelance blogger, writer, and speaker, and writes for various entertainment magazines.