SREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

                     [2014] 7 S.C.R. 799


    SREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION                     A
                              V.
              STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No. 8700 of 2013)

                   SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
                                                                  B
     [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
              SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]

      Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - s       C
 24(2) - Land acquisition proceedings under the 1894 Act -
 Award u/s 11 made on 30. 11. 2006 - Acquisition proceedings
 stayed by the court - Effect of 2013 Act on such proceedings
 - Held: Though it is not clear as to payment of CC?_mpensation
 to the land holders, but the physical possession of the lands    D
 belonging to the land holders has not been taken by the State
 - Five years have elapsed since the making of the award
 when the 2013 Act came into force - Thus, the land acquisition
 proceedings would lapse in terms of s. 24(2) even if
·proceedings were stayed by the court - s.24(2) does not          E
 exclude any period during which Land Acquisition proceeding
 might have remained stayed on account of stay or injunction
 granted by any court - Land Acquisition Act, 1894.           ·

     Disposing of the appeals, the Court
                                                                  F
      HELD: 1.1. From a plain reading of Section 24 of the
 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
 Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement A~t, 2013, it
 is clear that Section· 24(2) does not exclude any period
 during which the land acquisition proceeding might have          G
 remained stayed on account of stay or injunction granted
 by any court. The Legislature has consciously omitted to
 extend the period of five years indicated in Section 24(2)

                              799                                 H
    800    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A even if the proceedings had been delayed on account of
  an order of stay or injunction granted by a court of law
  or for any reason. Such casus omissus cannot be
  supplied by the court in view of law on the subject. [Para
  9] [807-A-D]
B
       Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. v. State of T.N. &
  Ors. 2002 (2) SCR 383 : (2002) 3 SCC 533 - referred to.

      · 1.2. The Legislature has, in its wisdom, made the
  period of five years under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act
C absolute and unaffected by any delay in the proceedings
  on account of any order of stay by a court. The plain
  wordings used by the Legislature are clear and do not
  create any ambiguity or conflict. In such a situation, the
  court is not required to depart from the literal rule of
D inte:rpretation. Furthermore, the law is trite that when the
  main enactment is clear and unambiguous, a proviso can
  have no effect so as to exclude from the main enactment
  by implication what clearly falls within its express terms.
  [Para 10, 11] {807-G-H; 808-E-F]
E
        Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Co. Ltd. v.
    Belwada Municipality AIR 1944 PC 71; C. I. T. v. Inda
    Mercantile Bank Ltd. 1959 Suppl. SCR 256 : AIR 1959 SC
    713; (2014) 6 sec 564 - referred to.

F     1.3. Though there is lack of clarity whether
  compensation has been paid for majority of land
  holdings under acquisition or not, there is no dispute that
  physical possession of the lands belonging to the
  appellants has not been taken by the State or any other
G authority on its behalf and more than five years have
  elapsed since the making of the award when the 2013
  Act came into force. Therefore, the conditions mentioned
  in Section 24(2) are satisfied and the land acquisition
  proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed in terms of
H Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. [Para 13] [809-C-E]
SREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION 801
          v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
     Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand          A
Misirimal Solanki & Ors. 2014 (1 ) SCR 783 : (2014) 3 SCC
183 - referred to.

                    Case Law Reference:

    2014 (1 ) SCR 783       Referred to          Para 6       B

    2002 (2) SCR 383        Referred to          Para 9

    AIR 1944 PC 71          Referred to          Para 11

    1959 Suppl. SCR 256 Referred to              Para 11      c
    (2014) 6 sec 564        Referred to          Para 12

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
8700 of 2013

    From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2007 of the       D
High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 714 of 2002

                          WITH

C.A. Nos. 8701, 8702, 8703 and 8704 of 2013.                  E
    R. Basant, Basava Prabhu, S. Patil, Kailash Vasudev, B.
Ragunath, Vijay Kumar, $.P. Sudalaiyandi, K.V. Mohan, V.
Balaji, Sivakumar, Rakesh K. Sharma, Umrao Singh Rawat,
Prasanath P., K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, T. Mohan, C. Kannan,
Asai Thambi, Atul Sharma for the Appellant.                   F

     Subramonium Prasad, AAG., B. Balaji, R. Rakesh
Sharma, S. Anand, Meha Agarwal, Abhishek Swa·roop,
Tavinder Sindhu, Sumit Gupta, Meenakshi Sood, Gunjan S.
Jain (For M.V: Kini & Associates) for the Respondents.        G

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. These civil appeals have been
heard together because they involve common questions of law
                                                              H
    802      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A and fact and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this
  common judgment and order.

          2. Whereas in Civil Appeal No.8700 of 2013, filed by an
    Association of Residents of a particular locality, the challenge
    is to the order of Government of Tamil Nadu bearing G.O.
8
    No.122 dated 14.07 .1998 containing a scheme for
    development of a proposed canal by name Madhavaram Left
    Flank Water Surplus Course, on the ground that the scheme is
    misconceived and technically flawed which shall lead to
C   unnecessary acquisition of land and building belonging to the
    residents of the affected area, the other Civil Appeals contain
    specific challenge to proceedings initiated under the Land
    Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act')
    undertaken by the Tc:imil Nadu State Government for the purpose
    of implementation of the said scheme covered by G.O. No.122
D   relating to the proposed canal improvement works. The actual
    land acquisition proceedings commenced with issuance of
    Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 02.02.2005,
    insofar as the lands under dispute are concerned. The Award
    was 'made on 30.11.2006 but in the meantime as appears from
E   the facts stated in C.A. No.8700 of 2013, upon a challenge
    made to the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the High
    Court stayed dispossession of the concerned land holders by
    order dated 17.2.2005 but ultimately the writ petitions and other
    tagged matters were dismissed on 27.4.2007. The matter
F   reached this Court and as a result of an interim order passed
    by this Court on 18.05.2007 in C.A.No.8701 of 2013 [arising
    out of S.L.P.(C)No.9492 of 2007] the land holders have
    remained protected from being dispossessed from their lands
    in question.
G
         3. The various orders passed by this Court in these cases
    reveal that the matter was taken up in a much wider perspective
    in the light of larger issues raised in public interest that
    alternative scheme be also devised and taken into account to
    prevent unnecessary displacement of large number of residents
H
  SREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION 803
   v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
  and with a view to protect likely pollution of some lakes on         A
  account of flood waters entering into such lakes and thereby
- affecting the cleanliness of possible sources for supply of
  drinking water. This Court, long back on 10.02.201 O felt the·
  need for and hence directed the respondents to submit a
  revised comprehensive plan of the area showing location of           B
  various water bodies, the construction of canal which had
  already taken place and the natural flow of water from Ambattur
  tank to Korattur tank and from Korattur tank to Capt. Cotton
  Canal. On 31.03.2010, learned senior counsel for the State of
  Tamil Nadu referred to and submitted a final report by Mott          c
  MacDonald, an expert appointed by the Government of Tamil
  Nadu to study the entire scheme and prepare Storm Water
  Drainage Master Plan for Madras City and Pre-feasibility Study
  for Madras Metropolitan Area. On going through the relevant
  portions of that Report, this Court decided to appoint an expert     D
  body to study the environmental aspect of the scheme under
  c_hallenge because the expert appointed by the State
  Government had suggested further study/monitoring of ground
  water outside the Chennai Metropolitan area. By order dated
  09.04.2010, this Court appointed a Committee of several              E
  experts under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice
  Doraiswamy Raju, a former Judge of this Court. The terms of
  reference included eight points and the Committee was
  requested to submit its report within three months. The
  Committee's report was made available to this Court, belatedly
  and for one reason or the other, the matter could not be heard       F
  finally for a long period. At the stage of hearing, on 10.07.2014,
  the State of Tamil Nadu expressed its willingness to explore the
  possibility of arriving at some consensus. This course was
  adopted in view of relevant map and materials which showed
  that as a part of Chennai City Waterways Alignment of Surplus        G
  Course Package IV, considerable part of the proposed canal
  had already been constructed but the balance part remained
  incomplete only on account of present proceedings against
  acquisition of lands for the purpose. However, the High Level
  Committee meeting under Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary          H
    804      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A of the State involving the petitioners in public interest litigation
  as well as representatives of the land owners' Association could
  not prove fruitful.

       4. In the meanwhile, on account of a subsequent legislation
  - The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
8
  Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for
  brevity, '2013 Act') coming into effect from 01.01.2014, through
  I.A. No.3 filed in Civil Appeal No.8701 of 2013, a plea was
  raised on behalf of the appellants that the appeals be allowed
  in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act by holding that the
C acquisition proceeding initiated under the Act has lapsed.

       5. The parties have been heard only on this narrow legal
  aspect to find out whether the appellants' prayer noted above
  deserves to be allowed in view of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act
D or not. In view of the order proposed, we find it futile to refer to
  and discuss the facts involved in different civil appeals. Section
  24 of 2013 Act is as follows :

          "24. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in
          any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under
E
          the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, -

                (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land
          Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this
          Act relating to the determination of compensation shall
F         apply; or

                (b) where an award under said section 11 has been
          made, then such proceedings shall continue under the
          provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said
G         Act has not been repealed.
          (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1 ),
          in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the
          Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the
          said section 11 has been made five years or more prior
H
SREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION 805
 v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
    to the commenct;ment of this Act but the physical                 A
    possession of the land has not been taken or the
    compensation has not been paid the said proceedings
    shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate
    Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings
    of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the            B
    provisions of this Act:

           Provided that where an award has been made and
    compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has
    no~ been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then,     C
    all 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 provisi·ons
    of this Act."

     6. It has been contended by learned senior counsel               D
appearing for the appellants that in view of the non obstante
clause in sub-section (2) of Section 24, notwithstanding an
award passed under Section 11 of the Act in respect of
acquisition proceedings under challenge, such proceedings
cannot continue under the provisions of the Act because the           E
award was made on 30.11.2006, i.e., more than five years
earlier and undisputedly physical possession of the land of the
concerned appellants has not been taken as yet. It has further
been contended that proceedings have lapsed because in
several cases the alleged payment is only by way of deposit in        F
treasury on 30.03.2007 and not by deposit in Court, as required
by law, Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this
Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v.
Harakchand Misirimal Solanki & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 183 in
support of the contention that compensation cannot be said to         G
have been paid only by its deposit with the Revenue authorities
such as the Government treasury, it can be accepted to have
been paid only if it is actually paid to the land owner or is
deposited in the Court as per requirement of Section 31 of the
Act. For showing that at least in the case of some land holders,
                                                                      H
    806      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A   the compensation was simply deposited in the Revenue
    Deposit Account in the sub-treasury and not in the concerned
    Court, a letter of Spl. Thasildar (LA), Chennai Corporation
    Waterways Project, Ambattur, Chennai, dated 30.03.2007 has
    been annexed with I.A. No.3 of 2014 in C.A.No.8701 of 2013.
B
         7. In reply Mr. Subramonium Prasad, AAG for the State of
    Tamil Nadu has produced some charts and documents to
    submit that compensation has been deposited in several cases
    with the concerned Civil Court also and in some cases the
    payments have been accepted by the land owners. However,
C   even as per the chart containing details of award and payments
    fQr 3.31 hectares of land involved in the case of Vishwanathan
    & Ors. in C.A. No.8701 of 2013 [arising out of S.L.P .(C)
    No.9492 of 2007] an amount of Rs.26,73,851/- is shown to be
    lying in Revenue deposit whereas only for a small portion of
D   land an amount of Rs.5,50,056/- is in Civil Court deposit.
    However, this issue need not be pursued any further because
    admittedly physical possession of the land involved in these
    appeals has not been taken over by the State and on that
    account alone, the land acquisition proceeding under challenge
E   Will have to be treated or declared as lapsed unless we find
    merit in the contention raised on behalf of State that this plea I
    cannot be used against the State because it was prevented •
    from taking physical possession of the lands on account of·
    interim orders passed by the High Court and this Court.
F
         8. There is no dispute that writ petitions were filed even
    before the making of award and interim orders have operated
    against the State of Tamil Nadu and, therefore, the State was
    not at fault in not taking physical possession of the concerned
G   lands under acquisition. But the intention of the Legislature in
    enacting Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act will have to be culled
    out from its wordings and on the basis of other relevant
    provisions of this Act and the relevant case law for deciding
    whether the period of stay/injunction is required to be excluded
    in computing the five years' period or not. .
H
SREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION 807
 v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
      9.' From a plain reading of Section 24 of the 2013 Act it A
is clear that Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not exclude
any period during which the land acquisition proceeding might
have remained stayed on account of stay or injunction granted
by any court. In the same Act, proviso to Section 19(7) in the
context of limitatiqn for publication of declaration under Section B
19( 1) and the Explanation to Section 69(2) for working out the
market value of the land in the context of delay between
preliminary notification under Section 11 and the date of the
award, specifically provide that the period or periods during
which the acquisition proceedings were held up on account of        c
any stay or injunction by the order of any court be excluded in
 computing the relevant period. In that view of the matter it can
 be safely concluded that the Legislature has consciously
 omitted to extt:!nd the period of five years indicated in Section
 24(2) even if the proceedings had been delayed on account of D
 an order of stay or injunction granted by a court of law or for
 any reason. Such casus omissus cannot be supplied by the
 court in view of law on the subject elaborately discussed by this .
 Court in 1he case of Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. v.
 State of T.N. & Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 533.
                                                                      E
      10. Even in the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, the
 Legislature had brought about amendment in Section 6 through
 an Amendment Act of 1984 to add Explanation 1 for the
 purpose of excluding the period when the proceeding suffered
 stay by an order of the court, in the context of limitation provided F
 for publishing the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. To
 a similar effect was Explanation to Section 11A which was
 added by Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Clearly the Legislature
 has, in its wisdom, made the period of five years under Section
 24(2) oflhe 2013 Act absolute and unaffected by any delay in G
 the proceedings on account of any order of stay by a court. The
 plain wordings used by the Legislature are clear and do not
 create any ambiguity or conflict. In such a situation, the court is
 not required to depart from the literal rule of interpretation.
                                                                     H
    808      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A         11. It was faintly suggested by Mr. Subramonium Prasad,
    le<1rned AAG for the State of Tamil Nadu that the proviso may
    come to the rescue of the State and save the proceedings from
    suffering lapse if it is held that since there was an award leading
    to payment of compensation in respect of some of the land
B   holdings only, therefore all the beneficiaries may now be entitled
    to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013
    Act. This contention could have been considered with some
    more seriousness if physical possession of the land had been
    taken but since that has not been done, the proviso dealing only
C   with compensation cannot be of any help to the State.
    Therefore, we are not required to go deeper into the effect and
    implications of the proviso which prima facie appears to be for
    the benefit of all the land holders in a case where the award is
    subsisting because the proceedings have riot lapsed and
    compensation in respect of majority of land holdings has not
0
    been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries. There is
    nothing in the language of the proviso to restrict the meaning
    of the words used in Section 24(2) mandating that the
    proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed if the award is
    five years or more than five years' old but the physical
E   possession of the land has not been taken over or the
    compensation has not been paid. The law is trite that when the
    main enactment is clear and unambiguous, a proviso can have:
    no effect so as to exclude from the main enactment by
    implication what clearly falls within its express terms, as held
F   by Privy Council in the case of Madras and Southern Mahratta
    Railway Co. Ltd. v. Bezwada Municipality AIR 1944 PC 71 and
    by this Court in the case of C.I. T. v. Inda Mercantile Bank Ltd.
    AIR 1959 SC 713.

G      12. The judgment of three Judges' Bench in the case of
  Harakchand Misirimal (supra) has been followed by another·
  Bench of three Judges in the case of Union of India & Ors. etc.·
  v. Shivraj & Ors. etc. (2014) 6 SCC 564. In paragraphs 25 and
  26 of that judgment, this Court took notice of a clarification:
H issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban
 SREE BALAJI NAGAR RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION 809
 v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.]
Development, Delhi Division dated 14.03.2014. Part of the           A
circular extracted in that case clearly shows that the period of
five years or more in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act has been
prescribed with a view to benefit the land-losers and the period
spent in litigation due to challenge to the award or the land
acquisition proceedings cannot be excluded.                         B

     13. From the discussions made above, it is amply clear
that though there is lack of clarity ori the issue whether
compensation has been paid for majority of land holdings
under acquisition or not, there is no dispute that physical         C
possession of the lands belonging to the appellants under
consideration in these appeals has not been taken by the State
or any other authority on its behalf and more than five years
have elapsed since the making of the award dated 30.11.2006
and 01.01.2014 when the 2013 Act came into force. Therefore,
toe conditions mentioned in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act are       D
satisfied for allowing the plea of the appellants that the land
acquisition proceedings must be deemed to have lapsed in
terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The appeals are
disposed of accordingly. It goes without saying that the
Government of Tamil Nadu shall be free, if it so chooses to         E
initiate proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in
accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act. In the facts and
circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain                                   Appeals dispsoed of.