TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of 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 extend the period of five years indicated in Section 24(2) 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. 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. From the discussions made, it is amply clear that though there is lack of clarity on the issue 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 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, the conditions mentioned in Section 24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic interest that alternative scheme be also devised and taken into account to prevent unnecessary displacement of large number of residents and with a view to protect likely pollution of some lakes on 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 10.02.2010 felt the need for and hence directed the respondents to submit a revised comprehensive plan of the area showing location of 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 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 body to study the environmental aspect of the scheme under challenge because the expert appoint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall 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 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 to the commencement of this Act but the physical 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 provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, 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 provisions of this Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne, the land acquisition proceeding under challenge will have to be treated or declared as lapsed unless we find merit in the contention raised on behalf of State that this plea 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. 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 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. From a plain reading of Section 24 of the 2013 Act it 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ossession of the land had been taken but since that has not been done, the proviso dealing only 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 not lapsed and compensation in respect of majority of land holdings has not 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 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
