SC split on land owners compensation row under emergency clause

New Delhi, Aug 18(PTI) The Supreme Court today delivered
a split verdict on the question of return of land to original
owners if the government, after acquiring the same, had
failed to pay compensation within the stipulated period of two
years under the Land Acquisition Act.
In view of their conflicting views, the bench of justices
Asok Kumar Ganguly and Swatanter Kumar referred the issue to a
larger bench.
While Justice Ganguly had ruled that the government
was bound to pay compensation within the two years even in
acquisition proceeding initiated under the emergency provision
of Section 17 of the Act, Justice Swatanter Kumar took the
view that non-compliance of the provision would not vitiate
the acquisition proceedings and the land would not revert back
to original owners.
In this case, M/s Delhi Airtech Services had appealed to
the Supreme Court pleading that the land acquired by the UP
Government for industrial purpose in NOIDA Sector 88 reverted
back to it as the authorities even three years after taking
possession of the premises in February, 2003, failed to pay
the compensation of Rs 8 crore.
The government had acquired the land under the emergency
provision provided under Section 17 which dispensed with the
requirement of giving a hearing to the owners before acquiring
the land.

Agreeing with the owners' plea, Justice Ganguly said "if
I look at the emergency provisions of the statute which
empowers the state to acquire land by dispensing with the
provisions of making an enquiry, it is clear that the said
provision is a drastic provision.
"This court is unable to accept that the taking over of
the possession by invoking Section 17(1) or Section 17(2) of
the Act and without making the payment under Section 17(3A) is
legal taking over of possession.
"Taking over possession of land without complying with
the requirement of section 17(3A) is clearly illegal and in
clear violation of the statutory provision which automatically
violates the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A.
"Therefore, emergency acquisition without complying with
section 17(3A) is illegal. This is the plain intention of the
statute which must be strictly construed. Any other
construction, in my opinion, would lead to diluting the
rule of law," Justice Ganuly said.
However, Justice Swatanter Kumar said "reversion of title
or possession of property acquired, which was vested in the
government or in the authority for whose benefit such lands
are acquired, is unknown to the scheme of the Act. To
introduce such a concept by interpretative process would
neither be permissible nor proper."