Skip to main content

Land ordinance is prospective, owners can take benefit of delays: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said that the recent ordinance on land acquisition is prospective in nature, holding that delays owing to litigation are to be counted to the benefit of landowners and going against state governments owing to the absence of specific language to this effect.

The court also said the benefit given to landowners is a "statutory right" and "cannot be taken away by an ordinance by inserting proviso to the above-said sub-section without giving it retrospective effect", it said with reference to the relevant clause.

"We are... of the view that there is a presumption against the retrospective operation of a statute and further a statute is not to be construed to have a greater retrospective operation than its language renders necessary, but an amending Act which affects the procedure is presumed to be retrospective, unless amending Act provides otherwise," it said.

The ruling was passed earlier this week on a petition filed by M/s Radiance Fincap Pvt. Ltd against the central government on the acquisition of its land. The company filed an application to challenge the ordinance that was promulgated recently.

The ordinance had been issued after widespread criticism that the land acquisition law that came into force on January 1, 2014, was flawed. It had brought land acquisitions to a halt, thus preventing development projects from getting off the ground.

Amending this was one of the key aims of the Narendra Modi government as part of its agenda to boost investment and economic activity in order to upgrade India's creaky infrastructure, generate jobs and revive growth.

While the relaxations in the ordinance applied mainly to the consent of land holders in relation to projects being set up in various industries, it covered other areas as well, including court delays.

Since the Act wasn't clear on the matter, the former UPA government solicitor general had issued a clarification at the end of January 2014 that any delay caused by the courts will benefit landowners.

The state governments had sought a review but the Supreme Court upheld this view, relying on a "plain reading" of the legislation.

The ordinance had said court delays will be excluded, which was seen as favouring state governments and going against landowners in cases involving thousands of crores of rupees.

The Supreme Court said earlier this week that "the legal position that emerges is that when a repeal of an enactment is followed by a fresh legislation, such legislation does not affect the substantive rights of the parties on the date of suit or adjudication of suit unless such a legislation is retrospective".

Article referred: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/land-ordinance-is-prospective-owners-can-take-benefit-of-delays-supreme-court/articleshow/45935617.cms

Comments

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...