Land Acquisition Act, 1894

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition claiming that a land acquisition under the 1894 Act, made by an award of 23.06.1989, had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act (paras 1, 7). Following the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, it held that the compensation deposited in the civil court on 26.05.1998 took the case outside Section 24(2), and allowed the heirs to seek 25% developed land by a representation (paras 5-9).

In land acquisition proceedings dating back to 1987, the Supreme Court disposed of the Meerut Development Authority's petitions against interim orders of the Allahabad High Court. The Authority must deposit the entire enhanced compensation with the High Court, of which 8.33% is to be released to the landowners and the rest invested, matching an earlier order; the High Court was asked to decide the first appeals preferably within six months (paras 3, 7-11).

In cross-appeals against a Gujarat High Court interim order staying a land acquisition award and its execution, the Supreme Court declined to decide disputed questions of fact pending in the first appeals. It continued the stay on JK Paper depositing a further Rs 15 crore, rejected the company's late plea that a nala reduced the usable land, and asked the High Court to expedite the dispute over the 2005 acquisition (paras 12-17).

In 47 appeals by landowners whose land in six Fazilka villages was acquired in 2000-01 for the Aspal Extension Drain, the Supreme Court restored the Reference Court's uniform Rs 5 lakh an acre and 50% severance charges on the unacquired land, rejecting the High Court's distance-based rates. It upheld the High Court on fruit trees (280 pleaded trees only), tubewells (Rs 50,000 each) and the bar on solatium and additional amount on such items (paras 5.4.6, 7.9, 11).

In a batch of about 530 appeals by land acquisition authorities, the Supreme Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to first appeals under Section 74 of the 2013 land acquisition law, set aside High Court judgments dismissing them as time-barred and condoned the delays. Awards passed after the 2013 Act came into force follow that Act, and the Court flagged official connivance behind the late appeals (paras 79-84, 97).

A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench held that a 1996 acquisition did not lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, although possession was never taken, because compensation had been tendered, refused and deposited in court, which satisfies Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act as read in Indore Development Authority. The landowners had also suppressed the tender and their own request for developed plots. The Single Judge's order was set aside, but the offered plots were directed to be allotted (paras 32-38).

The Supreme Court held that every Central and State law applying to a State also applies to its Scheduled Areas unless the Governor, under Clause 5(1) of the Fifth Schedule, notifies that it will not apply or will apply with modifications. It rejected the claim that non-tribals cannot settle, vote or contest elections in the Scheduled Area of Sundargarh in Odisha, and dismissed the appeal without costs (paras 13-14, 16, 19-20).