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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil...

Property can be sold on power of attorney - Delhi High Court

As reported in the Hindusthan Times on 5th May:-  http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Property-can-be-sold-on-power-of-attorney/Article1-1054964.aspx In a judgment that will benefit lakhs of Delhi residents living in co-operative housing societies and DDA flats, the Delhi High Court has quashed a Delhi government circular banning property sale in the Capital through general power of attorney (GPA). The court found that the directions in the circular, issued by the revenue department on April 27 last year, were contrary to the Supreme Court judgment dated October 11, 2011. The HC order will increase the number of saleable properties in Delhi and could bring down the value of freehold properties. According to realty watchers, on an average, around 20% of properties are registered through GPA transfers — a common way of selling leasehold properties and those that don’t have a clear title. The judgment came on a petition filed by a company, Pace Developers and ...