CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF

PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

VS
HARAKCHAND MISIRIMAL SOLANKI AND ORS.

By

Name of the Student: C ANAND HITESH

Roll No.: 2016027

Semester: IX

Name of the Program: 5 year (B.A., LL.B.)

Name of the Faculty Member

Mr. Arvind Nath Tripathi

Date of Submission:

18-01-2021

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

NYAYAPRASTHA “, SABBAVARAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM – 531035, ANDHRA PRADESH

1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

“Firstly, I am, highly grateful to Mr. Arvind Nath Tripathi, of Damodaram Sanjivayya
National Law University, for his support and guidance throughout this paper. I acknowledge
with deepest sense of gratitude, guidance and his support throughout the course of this
research paper. Through his guidance and insights, I have been set on the path towards
developing a successful thesis.

Secondly, I would also like to thank all information providers without whom this research
paper would have been incomplete.”

2
 CASE ANALYSIS

PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION V HARAKCHAND MISRIMAL SOLANKI SLP(C)

30283/2008

FACTS:

“The brief facts necessary for consideration of the above question are these. On 06.08.2002,
the proposal of the Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation (for short,
Corporation) duly approved by the Standing Committee for acquisition of lands admeasuring
43.94 acres for development of Forest Garden was sent to the Collector, Pune. The Collector
sanctioned the proposal and on 20.02.2003 forwarded the same to Special Land Acquisition
Officer (15), Pune for further action. On 30.09.2004, the notification under Section 4 of the
1894 Act was published in the official gazette. Then notices under Section 4(1)were served
upon the landowners/interested persons. On 26.12.2005, the declaration under Section 6 was
published in the official gazette and on 02.02.2006, it was also published at the site and on
the notice board of the Office of Talaltti. Following the notices under Section 9, on
31.01.2008 the Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award under Section 11 of the
1894 Act. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) - Section 24(2)-- Acquisition proceedings--Lapse of--
Award pertaining to subject land made by Special Land Acquisition Officer more than five
years prior to commencement of 2013 Act--Under Section 24(2) land acquisition proceedings
initiated under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by legal fiction, deemed to have lapsed where
award has been made five years or more prior to commencement of 2013 Act and possession
of land is not taken or compensation has not been paid--Legal fiction under Section 24(2)
comes into operation as soon as conditions stated therein are satisfied—Admitted position
that compensation so awarded neither paid to landowners/persons interested nor deposited in
court--Deposit of compensation amount in Government treasury is of no avail and cannot be
held to be equivalent to compensation paid to landowners/persons interested--Held--Subject
land acquisition proceedings deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2)—No merit in
contention that subject land acquisition proceedings concluded in all respects under Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and they are not at all affected in view of Section 114(2) of 2013
Act--Impugned judgment of High Court requires no interference. Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

3
Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) - Section 24(2)-- Expression, compensation has
not been paid occurring in Section 24(2)-- Meaning of--For purposes of Section 24(2),
compensation shall be regarded as paid if compensation has been offered to person
interested and such compensation has been deposited in court where reference under
Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) can be made on happening of
any of contingencies contemplated under Section 31(2) of 1894 Act—In other words,
compensation may be said to have been paid within meaning of Section 24(2)--when
Collector or for that-matter Land Acquisition Officer has discharged his obligation
and deposited amount of compensation in court and made that amount available to
interested person to be dealt with as provided in Sections 32 and 33 of 1894 Act. In
these 18 appeals, by special leave, it is argued on behalf of the Respondents
landowners that in view of Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for
short, 2013 Act) which has come into effect on 01.01.2014, the subject land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,
1894 Act) have lapsed. The question for decision relates to true meaning of the
expression: compensation has not been paid occurring in Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act.”
“It may not be necessary at all to go into the legality and correctness of the impugned
judgment, if the subject land acquisition proceedings are held to have lapsed. We,
therefore, deal with this aspect first. The brief facts necessary for consideration of the
above question are these. On 06.08.2002, the proposal of the Municipal
Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation (for short, Corporation) duly approved by
the Standing Committee for acquisition of lands admeasuring 43.94 acres for
development of Forest Garden was sent to the Collector, Pune. The Collector
sanctioned the proposal and on 20.02.2003 forwarded the same to Special Land
Acquisition Officer (15), Pune for further action. On 30.09.2004, the notification
under Section 4 of the 1894 Act was published in the official gazette. Then notices
under Section 4(1) were served upon the landowners/interested persons. On
26.12.2005, the declaration under Section 6 was published in the official gazette and
on 02.02.2006, it was also published at the site and on the notice board of the Office

4
of Talathi. Following the notices under Section 9, on 31.01.2008 the Special Land
Acquisition Officer made the award under Section 11 of the 1894 Act. The
landowners challenged the above acquisition proceedings before the Bombay High
Court in 9 writ petitions. of them, 2 were filed before making award and 7 after the
award. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings and the validity of the award was
laid on diverse grounds including (i) absence of resolution of the General Body of the
Corporation; (ii) non-compliance with the provisions of Section 5A, (iii)
noncompliance with the provisions of Section 7, and (iv) lapsing of acquisition
proceedings under Section 11A. The High Court on consideration of the arguments
advanced before it by the parties has held that the acquisition proceedings for the
development of Forest Garden could not be initiated by the Commissioner with the
mere approval of the Standing Committee without resolution of the General Body of
the Corporation. The acquisition proceedings were also held bad in law for
noncompliance of Section 7 and other statutory breaches. Inter alia, the High Court
has quashed the acquisition proceedings and gave certain directions including
restoration of possession.”
“It is argued on behalf of the landowners that by virtue of Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act, the subject acquisition shall be deemed to have been lapsed because the award
under Section 11 of the 1894 Act is made more than five years prior to the
commencement of 2013 Act and no compensation has been paid to the owners nor the
amount of compensation has been deposited in the Court by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. On the other hand, on behalf of the Corporation and so also for
the Collector, it is argued that the award was made by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer on 31.01.2008 strictly in terms of 1894 Act and on the very day the
landowners were informed regarding the quantum of compensation for their respective
lands. Notices were also issued to the landowners to reach the office of the Special
Land Acquisition Officer and receive the amount of compensation and since they
neither received the compensation nor any request came from them to make reference
to the District Court under Section 18, the compensation amounting to Rs. 27 crores
was deposited in the government treasury. It is, thus, submitted that there was no
default on the part of the Special Land Acquisition Officer or the government and,

5
hence, the acquisition proceedings have not lapsed. Moreover, reliance is also placed
on Section 114 of the 2013 Act and it is argued that the concluded land acquisition
proceedings are not at all affected by Section 24(2) and the only right that survives to
the landowners is to receive compensation. 2013 Act puts in place entirely new regime
for compulsory acquisition of land and provides for new scheme for compensation,
rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected families whose land has been acquired
or proposed to be acquired or affected by such acquisition.”

ISSUES:

Whether the acquisition proceedings were lapsed on account of non- compliance with
statutory provisions?

REASONING/PROVISIONS OF LAW INVOLVED:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act. regardless of land acquisition procedures
started under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894,- (a) where no honor under area 11 of the said
Land Acquisition Act has been made, at that point, all arrangements of this Act identifying
with the assurance of remuneration will apply; or (6) where an honor under said segment I
has been made, (hen such procedures will proceed under the arrangements of the said Land
Acquisition Act, as though the said Act has not been revoked.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-segment (1), in the event of land acquisition
procedures started under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, where an honor under the said area
11 has been made five years or more before the beginning of this Act yet the actual
ownership of the land has not been taken or the pay has not been paid the said procedures will
be considered to have slipped by and the proper Government, in the event that it so decides,
will start the procedures of such land acquisition over again as per the arrangements of this
Act: Provided that where an honor has been made and remuneration in regard of a greater
part of land possessions has not been saved in the record of the recipients, at that point, upset
recipients indicated in the warning for acquisition under segment 4 of the said Land
Acquisition Act, will be qualified for pay as per the arrangements of this Act.

6
(3) Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 likewise starts with non unyielding statement.
This arrangement has abrogating impact over Section 24(1). Section 24(2) enacts that
comparable to the land acquisition procedures started under 1894 Act, where an honor has
been made five years or more before the initiation of the 2013 Act and both of the two
possibilities is fulfilled, viz.; (I) actual ownership of the land has not been taken or (ii) the
pay has not been paid, such acquisition procedures will be considered to have slipped by. On
the slip by of such acquisition procedures, if the fitting Government actually decides to
secure the land which was the topic of acquisition under the 1894 Act then it needs to start
the procedures anew under the 2013 Act. The stipulation added to Section 24(2) manages a
circumstance where in regard of the acquisition started under the 1894 Act an honor has been
made and pay in regard of a dominant part of land property has not been kept in the record of
the recipients then all the recipients determined in Section 4 warning become qualified for
pay under 2013 Act.

(4) To discover the importance of the articulation, "pay has not been paid", it is important to
view Section 31 of the 1894 Act. Section 31 of the 1894 Act makes arrangement for
installment of remuneration or store of the equivalent in the Court. This arrangement
necessitates that the Collector should delicate installment of pay as granted by him to the
people intrigued who are qualified for pay. In the event that because of occurring of any
possibility as pondered in Section 31(2), the pay has not been paid, the Collector should store
the measure of pay in the Court to which reference can be made under Section 18.

(5) While enacting Section 24(2), Parliament certainly had in its view Section 31 of the 1894
Act. From that one thing is evident that it didn't plan to liken "paid" to "offered" or "offered".
And yet, we don't feel that by utilization of "paid". Parliament expected receipt of pay by the
landowners/people intrigued. In our view, it isn't suitable to give an exacting development to
the articulation "paid." Used in this subsection (Sub-section (2) of Section 24). On the off
chance that an exacting development were to be given, at that point it would add up to
overlooking methodology, mode and way of store gave in Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act in
case of occurring of any of the possibilities considered in that which may keep the Collector
from making actual installment of remuneration. We are of the view, accordingly, that for the
motivations behind Section 24(2), the pay will be viewed as "paid" if the pay has been
offered to the individual intrigued and such pay has been kept in the Court where reference

7
under Section 18 can be made on occurring of any of the possibilities mulled over under
Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act. As such, the remuneration might be said to have been "paid"
inside the importance of Section 24(2) when the Collector (or besides Land Acquisition
Officer) has released his commitment and stored the measure of pay in Court and made that
sum accessible to the intrigued individual to be managed as given in Sections 32 and 33.

To turn, now, to the meaning of the expression compensation has not been paid in Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act and its effect on the subject acquisition, it is necessary to refer to
Section 24 which reads as follows:

“24. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under 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 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 holding 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.”

8
JUDGEMENT:

“The Acquisition proceedings have been lapsed due to non-compliance with the statutory
provision of section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 1894 Act being an expropriatory
legislation has to be strictly followed. The procedure, mode and manner for payment of
compensation are prescribed in Part V (Sections 31-34) of the 1894 Act. The Collector, with
regard to the payment of compensation, can only act in the manner so provided. It is settled
proposition of law (classic statement of Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR
1936 PC 253 (SC) (2), that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the
thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily
forbidden.”

“Now, this is admitted position that award was made on 31.01.2008. Notices were issued to
the landowners to receive the compensation and since they did not receive the compensation,
the amount (Rs. 27 crores) was deposited in the government treasury. Can it be said that
deposit of the amount of compensation in the government treasury is equivalent to the
amount of compensation paid to the landowners/persons interested? We do not think so. In a
comparatively recent decision, this Court in Ivo Agnelo Santimano Fernandes and Ors. v.
State of Goa and Anr. [MANU/SC/0552/2011 : (2011) 11 SCC 506], relying upon the earlier
decision in Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd.
[MANU/SC/1097/1996: (1996) 2 SCC 71], has held that the deposit of the amount of the
compensation in the state's revenue account is of no avail and the liability of the state to pay
interest subsists till the amount has not been deposited in Court.”

From the abovementioned, obviously the honor relating to the subject land has been made by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer over five years preceding the initiation of the 2013 Act.
It is additionally conceded position that pay so granted has nor been paid to the
landowners/people intrigued nor saved in the Court. The store of remuneration sum in the
public authority depository is of little consequence and can't be held to be equal to pay paid to
the landowners/people intrigued. We have, thusly, no dithering in holding that the subject
land acquisition procedures will be considered to have slipped by under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act.

9
The contention in the interest of the Corporation that the subject land acquisition procedures
have been deduced in all regards under the 1894 Act and that they are not influenced at all
taking into account Section 114(2) of the 2013 Act, has no legitimacy by any means, and is
noted to be dismissed. Section 114(1) of the 2013 Act repeals 1894 Act. Sub-section (2) of
Section 114, notwithstanding, makes Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 pertinent
with respect with the impact of annulment however this is dependent upon the arrangements
in the 2013 Act. Under Section 24(2) land acquisition procedures started under the 1894 Act,
by lawful fiction, are considered to have slipped by where grant has been made five years or
more before the initiation of 2013 Act and ownership of the land isn't taken or pay has not
been paid. The legitimate fiction under Section 24(2) comes into activity when conditions
expressed in that are fulfilled. The relevance of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act being
liable to Section 24(2), there is no legitimacy in the dispute of the Corporation.

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is not necessary to consider the correctness of the
impugned judgment on merits. The appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.

10