AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 1496

Supreme Court Of India

Hon'ble Judge(s): Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M. R. Shah, S. Ravindra Bhat , JJJ

(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (30 of 2013) , S.24(1)(a), S.24(1)(b), S.24(2) Proviso— Acquisition of land - Scope of S. 24 - Expression 'possession of land has not been taken' or 'compensation has not been paid' indicates failure on part of authorities to take necessary steps for @page-SC1497five years or more in pending proceeding under S. 24(1)(b) - S. 24(2) has to be read as exception to S. 24(1)(b) and Proviso has to be read as Proviso to S. 24(2).Interpretation of Statutes - Intention of legislature. After reading word the word 'or' as 'and' in the main part of section 24(2), it is clear that the proviso has to stay as part of section 24(2) where it has been placed by the legislature, and only then it makes sense. If 'or' used in-between two negative conditions of 'possession has not been taken' or 'compensation has not been paid,' disjunctively, in that case, the proviso cannot be operative and would become otiose and would make no sense as part of Section 24(2). In case of amount not having been paid the acquisition has to lapse, though possession (of the land) has been taken would not be the proper interpretation of the main part, When 'or' is read conjunctively, section 24(2) provided for lapse in a case where possession has not been taken, nor compensation has....