The Land Acquisition Act, 2013 which is officially known as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has brought significant changes to the process of Land Acquisition in India compared to its predecessor which is the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The key difference between both the acts is that the act of 1894 only focused on acquisition for public purposes without emphasising on rehabilitation and resettlement.

However, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 not only focuses on acquisition but also gives a significant amount of emphasis on fair compensation, transparency, comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement of affected families. It is pertinent to mention that more often than not, the state authorities misuse their powers and the courts have not laid down particular guidelines under which acquisition must take place.

However, in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr v Bimal Kumar Shah and Ors[1], has recognised seven sub rights of the person's whose property is acquired by the state under the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. These seven sub rights are the roots of law which is in consonance with Article 300A of Indian Constitution and not adhering to the following sub rights will make the entire acquisition process susceptible to challenge. However, it is pertinent to mention that these seven sub-rights are not a complete remedy that is provided under the above-mentioned judgment.

It is trite principle under jurisprudence that merely mentioning a right is not enough for it to become an effective right. Under such circumstances, proper guidelines shall be issued by the court while recognizing a right. This article aims to analyze the seven sub rights under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and aims to bring out the loop holes which may be arbitrarily used by the state to cause wrongful loss and hardships to person who land is being acquired.

The Seven Sub rights are in the following order:

Right To Notice

The Supreme court in Narendrajit Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh[2] and State of Mysore v Abdul Razak Sahib[3] held that a notification for acquisition is a mandatory process and non-fulfilment of this procedure will be a valid ground to quash the entire proceedings of acquisition.

In Narinderjit Singh and Ranjit Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh[4], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if notice is not issued and published then the acquisition proceedings are void ab initio. The Supreme court has also recognized the importance of a clear notice which should be issued to person who land is being acquired. The basic principle which is recognized by the court and under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is that Land should only be acquired for "public purposes".

The notice issued to person whose land is being acquired should also convey a clear idea for what public purpose the land is being acquired. With regards to the above- mentioned argument, its important to refer to certain judicial precedents wherein the Supreme Court has recognized the importance of issuing a notice which is clear and not vague.

In Munshi Singh v Union of India[5], the court set aside the acquisition proceedings because the public purposes mentioned in the notice was "planned development of the area" which was observed to be vague and insufficient. Subsequent to that in Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. Shafi[6], the court set aside the acquisition proceedings because the public purposes mentioned as "residential" was vague and unclear. It is pertinent to mention that "Right to Notice" is an extension of Article 19(1)(a) which is the right to know. The constitution doesn't recognize acquisition by ambush. A prior notice is required before acquiring property of a person. The notice should be clear, meaningful and convincing.

Right To Be Heard

The Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v Darius Shapur Chennai[7] held that submitting objection under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a right of great importance. However, the judgment did not clarify whether the proceedings of acquisition will be invalidated or not if right to be heard was not given to person whose land was being acquired. However, in Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal[8] and Gojer Bros. (P) Ltd. State of West Bengal[9], the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the entire Land Acquisition proceedings were quashed because the proper hearing was not accorded under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is pertinent to mention that the right to be heard and filing of objections under the Act of 2013 is a valuable right and the enquiry raised by the land owner should not heard as mere formality but should be given reasonable importance.

Right To A Reasoned Decision

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Singh v. International Airport Authority of India[10] held that publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is mandatory and if declaration is not published then the initial notification ceases to have any effect. The principle of reasoned decision is existing under section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 wherein the government intending to acquire a particular portion of land has to give a declaration to the owner of the land which is planned to be acquired, such declaration must be published in two local newspapers, one of which shall be a newspaper in the regional language.

Under various statutes the same procedure has to be followed and if such procedure is not followed then the entire proceedings are deemed to be void ab initio. One such example is the procedure that the secured has to follow in taking symbolic possession under the section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The procedure includes publishing possession of the property taken in two local newspapers, one of which shall be a newspaper in the regional language.

In the landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh[11], held that once symbolic possession of a property is taken by the secured creditor within seven days, they have to publish it in two newspapers, one in English newspaper and another in the regional language newspaper. If the secured creditor fails to adhere to this rule, then borrower has the right to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act and non- adherence to such a rule is valid ground for the entire SARFAESI proceedings to be quashed. Similarly, the same analogy shall also be used for Land Acquisition proceedings wherein if mandatory rules under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 is not followed then the entire Acquisition proceedings shall be quashed.

The Duty To Acquire Only For Public Purpose

Right to property was a fundamental right under Article 31 of the Indian Constitution but it was removed from the status of a fundamental right after the Forty Fourth Amendment Act, 1978. However, Right to Property still remains a Constitutional Right under Article 300A of the Constitution.

A person can be deprived of his property only by the authority of law. Under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, a person can only be deprived of his property if the state is acquiring the property for public purposes. It is important to analyze certain judicial precedents by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to trace the historical evolution of the meaning of the word "for public purposes".

The Supreme Court in Somawanti v State of Punjab[12], held that the state can acquire a person's private Land only for public purpose. Later in Daulat Singh Sura v First Land Acquisition Collector[13], the Supreme court explained the entire rationale behind the state acquiring a private property. In this case the court held that the rationale behind acquiring a private property for public purpose is that private interest must give way to public interest.

Now, there is another question that will arise which is whether the Land Acquisition proceedings will be held valid if the public purpose has changed for which the Land was acquired. It is pertinent to mention that in D. Hanumanth SA v. State of Karnataka[14], the acquisition proceedings were held to be valid in nature even if the public purpose has changed. The court held that change in public purpose is not deemed to be contrary to law under Land Acquisition proceedings, so long as there is public purpose for which the land is acquired.

The Right Of Restitution Or Fair Compensation

The Acquisition proceedings are traumatic for more than one reason and if fair compensation is not provided to the person whose land is being acquired then it goes against the principles of natural justice. The right to fair compensation and restitution has been recognised in the Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Supreme court has recognized that fair compensation is not only a mere requirement but also a necessity under the Land Acquisition proceedings.

In State of Uttar Pradesh v Manohar[15], the Supreme Court held that payment is an integral part of the process of Land Acquisition. The Supreme Court has not only focused on providing a compensation when a person's land is acquired by the state but they have also taken a step forward in recognizing the principle of 'fair compensation'. In NHAI v. P.Nagaraju[16], the Supreme Court held that compensation must be adequate and should fetch the best market value of the acquired land. It can clearly be ascertained that fair compensation is a mandatory principle which shall be followed under Land Acquisition proceedings.

The Right Of Conclusion

The Land Acquisition proceedings ought to be concluded as efficiently as possible, delaying in completing proceedings within a reasonable period keeps the person whose land is being acquired in suspense. In various cases, the Supreme Court has held delay to the conclusion of the Land Acquisition proceedings are illegal.

The Supreme Court in Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P[17], held that excessive intervening delay between notifications, keeping the land owner in suspense throughout is illegal. In another landmark case Ambalal Purshottam v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation[18], the Supreme Court held that a notification of acquisition of Land has to be followed with proceeding for determination of compensation without any unreasonable delay.

Is Mere Recognition Of A Right Enough?

Rights are there to safeguards the interests of people from the government, individuals and the world at large. However, mere recognition of a right is not enough. According to the common definition of administrative law, a right is vested with the citizens to keep the power of the state accountable. However, these rights have to be defined clearly and the judiciary has to make sure that the state doesn't misuse its power. The duty of the judiciary is to apply the principle of 'rule of law' to decide situations where the problem is revolving around "rule established by law".

This presumption is based on the fact that rules will keep on changing but the principle behind the rule remains the same. The Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v Manohar Lal[19] gave new interpretation to Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, wherein the court held that Land Acquisition proceedings will not lapse if possession is taken or compensation is provided to person whose land is being acquired.

The Supreme Court held that only one of the two conditions are required to be fulfilled to prevent the land acquisition proceedings from lapsing. However, there is a major loophole in the judgment which is going to be devastating for the person whose land is being acquired by the state for "Public Purposes". The issue with the judgment is that mere possession of the property by the state without paying compensation is enough for the Land Acquisition proceedings to not lapse.

It is pertinent to mention that in a country like India, property is not only a basic necessity but a luxury. Citizens spend their entire lives to buy a property in this country where real estate prices are extortionate. In such a scenario if mere possession is the only requirement to acquire someone's property, then it goes against the principles of natural justice. The state can very well misuse the provision by only acquiring the property and delaying the compensation for an inordinate duration.

The Supreme court has recognized 7 sub rights in Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr v Bimal Kumar Shah and Ors[20]. One of the sub-rights is right to conclusion wherein the court held that acquisition proceedings will not be complete if compensation is not paid or possession is not taken by the state. The court held that compensation should be paid without any inordinate delay. However, the court has not touched upon the extremely important point of law which is the time limit for payment of compensation.

The judgment was silent on the fact whether Land Acquisition proceedings will be quashed if compensation is not paid within a specific time period. The court's stance was that acquisition proceedings will not be complete if possession is not taken or compensation is not paid. This stance has created a major issue which is that Land Acquisition proceedings cannot be quashed if compensation is not paid and the state can very well misuse its power by delaying the payment of compensation for an inordinate duration causing harassment to the person whose land is acquired.

Conclusion
In conclusion, compared to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 represents a substantial change in India's land acquisition regulations. In order to rectify the deficiencies of the previous law, the 2013 Act lays a great emphasis on equitable compensation, transparency, and the thorough rehabilitation and relocation of impacted families.

The Supreme Court's identification of seven sub-rights highlights the significance of these safeguards and brings them into compliance with Article 300A of the Indian Constitution. Notwithstanding these developments, there are still difficulties in putting these rights into practice. To ensure that these rights are successfully maintained and to stop the arbitrary use of state power, the judiciary must establish clear guidelines. The principles of natural justice dictate that land acquisition actions are carried out honestly, with due process, and that affected individuals are adequately compensated in a timely way.

In the current ruling, the Supreme Court refrained from addressing any time constraints on compensation, which underscores a critical issue that needs more judicial clarification to avoid possible abuse by the government. Overall, while the 2013 Act and subsequent judicial interpretations represent progress, continuous vigilance and refinement are necessary to ensure that the rights of landowners are protected, and that land acquisition processes are fair, just, and transparent.

End-Notes:

1. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr v Bimal Kumar Shah and Ors 2024 SCC OnLine SC 968 (India)
2. Narendrajit Singh v. State of U.P (1970) 1 SCC 125 (India)
3. State of Mysore v Abdul Razak Sahib (1973) 3 SCC 196 (India)
4. Narinderjit Singh and Ranjit Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) 1 SCC 157 (India)
5. Munshi Singh v Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 337 (India)
6. Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. Shafi (1992) 2 SCC 168 (India)
7. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v Darius Shapur Chennai (2005) 7 SCC 627 (India)
8. Kamal Trading (P) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (2012) 2 SCC 25 (India)
9. Gojer Bros. (P) Ltd. State of West Bengal (2013) 16 SCC 660 (India)
10. Mohan Singh v. International Airport Authority of India (1997) 9 SCC 132 (India)
11. M/s Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 2 SCC 198 (India)
12. Somawanti v State of Punjab (1962) SCC OnLine SC 23 (India)
13. Daulat Singh Sura v First Land Acquisition Collector (2007) 1 SCC 641 (India)
14. D. Hanumanth SA v. State of Karnataka (2010) 10 SCC 656 (India)
15. State of Uttar Pradesh v Manohar (2005) 2 SCC 126 (India)
16. NHAI v. P. Nagaraju (2022) 15 SCC 1 (India)
17. Khadim Hussain v. State of U.P (1976) 1 SCC 843 (India)
18. Ambalal Purshottam v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (1968) 3 SCR 207 (India)
19. Indore Development Authority v Manohar Lal 2020 SCC OnLine SC 316 (India)
20. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr v Bimal Kumar Shah and Ors 2024 SCC OnLine SC 968 (India)