LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


  • The Court noted that applying the two-year limit to awards issued under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act could result in practical absurdities and paradoxes.
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 mandating a two-year waiting period before land acquisition proceedings expire will no longer apply following the repeal of the Act and the implementation of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act of 2013.
  • When the two-year timeframe is applied to awards granted under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, a bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna stated that, given the intent of Sections 24, and 26 to 30 of the 2013 Act, practical absurdities and anomalies could occur.


  • On June 16, 2011, the Maharashtra government issued a notification under the 1894 Act for the acquisition of 103.86 hectares of land, which was followed by the release of declarations, the most recent of which was dated August 8, 2012.
  • The Special Land Acquisition Officer allegedly made an award under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act on October 30, 2014. The Special Land Acquisition Officer's order was challenged in the Bombay High Court, and it was upheld.
  • The award should have been made within two years of the date of the declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, according to the Bombay High Court.


  • "Section 11A requires that an award under Section 11 be passed within two years of the date of publication of the declaration, and if no award is made, the proceedings for acquisition of land shall expire," the Supreme Court explained.
  • The Court held that Clause 24(1)(a) applied since the land acquisition proceedings begun under the 1894 Act did not result in an award until the repeal of the 1894 Act, and that this section eliminated the need for a new notification under the 2013 Act.
  • The Supreme Court also considered a Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal and Others, which found that if acquisition procedures were started under the 1894 Act but no award was issued under Section 11 of the 1894 Act, the provisions of the 2013 Act would apply.
  • It was also underlined in the judgement that the Constitution Bench found that the 2013 Act operates prospectively.
  • In accordance with Section 24, Section 114 of the 2013 Act results in a repeal but with certain savings.
  • As a result, the acquisition proceedings are preserved under the 1894 Act until the award is made.
  • After a thorough examination of the language used in the two clauses, the Court determined that the provision should be understood as prospective because the current case does not involve the divesting of vested rights of landowners prior to the implementation of the 2013 Act.


  • It was decided that awards issued and published under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act would be covered by Section 25 of the 2013 Act.
  • The limitation period for passing an award under Section 24(1)(a) was also determined to begin on January 1, 2014, the date the 2013 Act took effect.
  • As a result, the appeals were permitted, concluding that the acquisition processes had not lapsed and that the award was legal and valid.


  • Do you agree with the court’s observation and order in the above case?
  • Do you think a two year period should be applied after repeal?

Let us know you views on the issue in the comment section below!

"Loved reading this piece by Niyati Trivedi?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  60  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query