The section-24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 deals with the right to fair compensation and transparency. In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v/s Harakchand Solanki (2014), it was held that the proceedings which have initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 within five years before coming into a new act of 2013. It would lapse if the state did not take possession of acquired land or not compensation to the landholders. This case was heard by the three-judge bench in which Justice R M Lodha presided the bench and others justices were Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph. The bench has decided that if compensation is not paid, it can be ground to cancel the land acquisition. Land acquisition cannot be quashed if landowner delays in accepting the compensation within 5 years due to litigation or any other reason. If landholder refuses to receive their compensation for land acquisition then it was the duty of the state instead of deposit in treasurer of government, it was deposit the compensation in the Court.
In another case, the bench of Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Mohan M Shantonagoudar in Indore Development Authority v/s Shailendra through Lrs and Ors held that the judgment which has passed in the Pune Municipal Corporation Case to be per incuriam . It was decided by the bench that if compensation is not given within the five years then it would not be ground for cancellation of land acquisition. The landholder cannot take advantage under the old act by refusing to take compensation but under the new act, 2013 made it more beneficial to landholders by giving high compensation. The section – 24(2) of the act, 2013 is used the word ” paid ” it means the amount of compensation should be deposited in the Court. If compensation is not deposited in the Court it does not make cancel the acquisition but in the case of failure, the only result is that compensation should be given with high rate of interest.
Today, there is a conflict of decision in two different cases by two different benches and one bench declare another bench decision to be per incuriam Now, this conflict is settled by larger Constitution bench of the supreme court.