Case Title: Indore Development Authority V. Manoharlal & Ors.
A five-judge Supreme Court panel ruled that even if the compensation has been given through a deposit in the Treasury, the Land Acquisition Act 1894's processes would not expire.
The Court ruled that as of January 1, 2014, when the new land acquisition legislation went into effect, landowners may no longer demand that the money is placed in court in order to continue land acquisition proceedings under the previous Act.
"Deposit in treasury in place of deposit in court causes no prejudice to the landowner or any other stakeholder as their interest is adequately safeguarded by the provisions contained in Section 34 of the Act of 1894, as it ensures a higher rate of interest than any other Government securities. Their money is safe and credited in the earmarked quantified amount and can be made available for disbursement to him/them. There is no prejudice caused and every infraction of law would not vitiate the act", the bench observed.
If the government has offered the money through a deposit in the treasury, landowners cannot claim that the proceedings have terminated, Justice Arun Mishra read the ruling aloud to the court. Once the government offers the compensation sum, the responsibility to pay it is fulfilled. There is no need that the money is to be physically deposited with the landowners or in the relevant Court.
As a result, the bench rejected the judgement in the Pune Municipal Corporation case from 2014 and upheld the position in the 2018 Indore Development Authority case. The case was considered by a bench made up of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M. R. Shah, and Ravindra Bhat.
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013's Section 24(2) was at issue in the case. According to this clause, if "compensation has not been paid," compensation procedures under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 would expire at the start of the 2013 Act.
The issue in the case was whether the Government's deposit of compensation in the Government Treasury could be considered "paid" in accordance with Section 24(2). Furthermore, the five-judge panel ruled that the term "or" in Section 24(2) should be interpreted as "and." This indicates that the previous LA Act's actions will only be abandoned if possession is not taken, and compensation is not paid.
There is no lapse if possession is taken but no compensation is given. If compensation is paid but possession is not seized, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 procedures will not expire either.