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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more