BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORSversusNISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS.

360                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   17 S.C.R. 360             [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORS.
                                       v.
                       NISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS.
                     (Civil Appeal Nos. 6781-6783 of 2022)
B                             OCTOBER 12, 2022
               [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]
             Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
      Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Applicability
      of – Land in question was sought to be acquired under the J&K
C
      Land Acquisition Act, 1990 – Landowners filed the writ petition
      before the High Court challenging the land acquisition proceedings
      initiated under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 – During the
      pendency of the writ petition, the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990
      came to be repealed – Original writ petitioners-landowners submitted
D     that neither the possession of the land in question nor the award
      has been declared under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 –
      Thus, the landowners will be entitled to compensation of acquired
      land in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and
      Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
      Act, 2013 – High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed to
E
      determine the compensation of the acquired lands in accordance
      with the s.24 (1) of the Act of 2013 – Appellants submitted before
      the Supreme Court, that the High Court has erred and in view of
      Clause 2(13) of the J&K Reorganisation (Removal of Difficulties)
      Order, 2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the
F     rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities acquired, accrued or
      incurred under any law so repealed and that any investigation, legal
      proceedings or remedy may be instituted, continued and enforced
      as if J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019 has not been passed – Section
      24(1) of the Act of 2013 will not be applicable – Held: Section
      24(1) of the Act, 2013 speaks about the land acquisition proceedings
G
      initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in the present
      case, the land in question have been acquired as per the provision
      provided under the J&K Land Acquisition Act, 1990 – The case of
      the landowners that as the provisions of the J&K State Act of 1990
      are pari materia to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , the provisions
H     under Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013 will be applicable, cannot
                                       360
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORS.                           361
          v. NISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS.

be accepted – The language of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 is very       A
clear and unambiguous and it talks about the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 only and does not speak about any other pari materia
provision of different statutes – High Court has committed a serious
error in directing to pay compensation under the Act of 2013 –
Therefore, the impugned common judgment and order of the High
                                                                          B
Court is quashed – Accordingly, all the writ petitions are remitted
back to the High Court to decide in accordance with the law and
on its own merit – However, the issue with respect to the applicability
of the Act of 2013 is concluded.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                                          C
      HELD: 1. On fair reading of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act,
2013, it provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Act,
2013, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where no award under Section
11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all
provisions of Act, 2013 relating to the determination of the              D
compensation shall apply. Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 speaks
about the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. In the present case, the lands in question
have been acquired under the provisions of the State Land
Acquisition Act, 1990. Therefore, the acquisition of the lands in         E
question is not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It cannot
be disputed that prior to the enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir
Reorganization Act, 2019 and promulgation of the Jammu &
Kashmir (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was not applicable at all so as far as the
State of Jammu & Kashmir is concerned. It is only on the                  F
enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019,
Act, 2013 shall be made applicable. It is the case on behalf of the
original writ petitioners that as the provisions of the State Act of
1990 are pari materia to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and
therefore, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable.         G
The aforesaid cannot be accepted. The language of Section
24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 is very clear and unambiguous. It talks
about the land acquisition under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 only and it does not speak about any other
pari materia provision of different statutes. [Para 5.1][369-F-H;
370-A-C]                                                                  H
362           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A           2. At this stage the decision of this Court in the case of
      Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. is required to be referred
      to. In the said decision it is specifically observed and held that
      the Act, 2013 repeals only the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and
      not any other Central or State enactment dealing with the
      acquisition and therefore, what is sought to be saved under the
B
      Act, 2013 is only acquisitions which have been initiated under
      the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not those acquisitions which
      have been initiated under any other Central or State enactment.
      In view of the above binding decision, this Court is of the firm
      view that the provisions of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable
C     with respect to the acquisition under the J & K Act, 1990. [Para
      5.2][370-C-E; 371-C]
              3. Even otherwise considering clause 2(13) of the Order,
      2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act under which
      the rights, liabilities, privileges, obligations acquired, accrued,
D     or incurred under the repealed laws stands saved and would be
      continued under those Acts (in the present case the Act, 1990),
      it is to be noted that Order, 2019 is subsequent to the Act, 2013.
      Therefore, it is to be presumed that while enacting the Order,
      2019 and providing Clause 2(13) of the Order, 2019, the legislature
      was conscious of the provisions of the earlier Act (Act, 2013).
E     Under the circumstances also, with respect to the lands acquired
      under the State Act of 1990, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013
      shall not be applicable at all. [Para 5.3][371-D-E]
             4. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in some
      of the writ petitions there was an order of status quo may be with
F     respect to the possession. It is to be noted that the notification
      under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the State Act
      of 1990 was a common notification/declaration. Therefore, there
      was impediment on the part of the authority in declaring the award.
      The original writ petitioners cannot be permitted to take benefit
G     of the order of status quo obtained by some of the original writ
      petitioners and thereafter to contend that as the award has not
      been declared they shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of
      compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. [Para
      5.4][371-F-H]

H
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORS.                          363
          v. NISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS.

      5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above           A
and this Court’s specific finding that with respect to the lands
acquired under the provisions of the J & K Act, 1990 Section
24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable and even otherwise
as observed hereinabove on merits also as the award could not
be declared due to the pendency of the writ petitions before the
                                                                         B
High Court and the order of status quo, the High Court has
committed a serious error in directing the appellants to pay the
amount of compensation under the Act, 2013. To that extent the
impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court
is unsustainable, both on facts as well as on law. [Para 6][374-D-
E]                                                                       C
      Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. v. The State
      of Karnataka & Ors. [M.A. No. 1614-1616 of 2019 in
      Civil Appeal Nos. 7661-7663 of 2018] : 2022 (2)
      SCALE 818; Indore Development Authority v.
      Manoharlal and Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3                    D
      SCR 1 – relied on.
                       Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1                  relied on               Para 8.4
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6781-             E
6783 of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 06.10.2021 of the High Court
of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu in OWP 2555 of 2018,
WP(C) 192 of 2021 and WP (C) 463 of 2021.
      With                                                               F
      Civil Appeal Nos. 6781-6783 of 2022.
       Tushar Mehta, SG, K. M. Nataraj, Vikramjit Banerjee, ASGs,
Parijat Sinha, Devesh Mishra, Ms. Pallak Bhagat, Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha,
Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Ms. Shruti Aggarwal, Ms. Janhvi
Prakash, Parth Awasthi, Kartik Dey, Advs. for the Appellants.            G

     Sunil Fernandes, Sakal Bhushan, Ms. Nupur Kumar, Vasu
Bhushan, Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Divyansh Tiwari, Ms. Diksha Dadu,
Ms. Muskan Surana, Advs. for the Respondents.

                                                                         H
364                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
               M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
      judgment and order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the High Court of Jammu
      & Kashmir and Ladakh, at Jammu in respective writ petitions preferred
B     by the private respondents herein – original petitioners whereby the
      appellants herein – original respondents have been directed to determine
      the compensation of the acquired lands in accordance with the provisions
      of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
      Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
C     “the Act, 2013”), the appellants herein – original respondents have
      preferred present appeals.
               2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nut-shell are as
      under:
              2.1 That, the lands in question were sought to be acquired under
D     the provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (hereinafter
      referred to as “State Act of 1990”). The notification under Section 4 of
      the State Act of 1990 was issued on 15.11.2016. The lands in question
      were sought to be acquired for the appellants – beneficiary. That
      thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the State Act of 1990 was
E     issued on 12.11.2018. The land owners – original petitioners filed the
      respective petitions before the High Court challenging the proceedings
      initiated under the J&K Land Acquisition Act SVT 1990 with the following
      prayers: -
               A.     CERTIORARI; so as to quash the proceedings initiated by
F                     respondents u/s 4,6,9 & 9-A and Section 17 of J & K Land
                      Acquisition Act, SVT 1990 for the acquisition of land for
                      relocation of petroleum Depots from Channi Himmat near
                      Railway Station to Villages Pargalta and Khana Chargal,
                      Tehsil and District Jammu.
               B.     MANDAMUS; so as to command and direct the
G
                      respondents to de-notify the land sought to be acquired in
                      villages Pargalta and Kanna Chargal, Tehsil and District
                      Jammu for re-location of Petroleum Depots.


H
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORS.                                  365
    v. NISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       C.     PROHIBITION; so as to restrain the respondents from                A
              taking the possession of land falling under various Khasra
              numbers of aforesaid villages u/s 17 of J&K Land
              Acquisition Act.
       2.2 That, during the pendency of the writ petitions before the
High Court, the State Act of 1990 came to be repealed. When the aforesaid        B
writ petitions came up for hearing before the High Court, the learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners submitted
that the petitioners would be satisfied, if instead of quashing the land
acquisition proceeding, determination of compensation is made in
accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Act, 2013.
                                                                                 C
      2.3 It was the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners before
the High Court that as neither the possession of the lands in question
have been taken over nor the award has been declared even under the
State Act of 1990, the original writ petitioners shall be entitled to
compensation of acquired land in accordance with the provisions of
Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013.                                                  D

         2.4 The aforesaid prayer was opposed by the appellants on the
ground that as the acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the
State Act of 1990, Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable
at all. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that in view of Section
6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with sub-clause (13) of Clause           E
2 of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties)
Order, 2019 issued vide S.O. No.3912(E) of 2019 dated 30.10.2019 of
the Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of J & K Affairs) the repeal
of the Act shall not affect the rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities
acquired, accrued or incurred under any law so repealed and that any             F
investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued
and enforced as if Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 has not
been passed. Therefore, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants
that award in respect of the acquisition in question has to be made in
accordance with the provisions of the State Act of 1990 and Section 24
of the Act, 2013 would not be applicable.                                        G
      2.5 By the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of
the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has directed the
appellants – original respondents to determine the compensation of the
acquired lands in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013.
                                                                                 H
366             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A           2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment
      and order passed by the High Court directing the appellants to determine
      and pay the compensation of the acquired lands in accordance with the
      provisions of the Act, 2013, the original respondents – appellants herein,
      for whose benefit the lands have been acquired, have preferred the
      present appeals.
B
            3. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing on
      behalf of the appellants has vehemently submitted that in the facts and
      circumstances of the case, the High Court has erred in directing the
      appellants to determine and pay the compensation under the provisions
      of Section 24 of the Act, 2013.
C
              3.1 It is further submitted that in view of Clause 2(13) of the
      Order, 2019 read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the rights,
      liabilities, and obligations acquired, accrued or incurred under the Repeal
      Law vis. State Act of 1990 stands saved and would continue under the
      said Act.
D
             3.2 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Solicitor General
      appearing on behalf of the appellants that even otherwise considering
      Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013, with respect to the acquisition under the
      State Act of 1990, Act, 2013 shall not be applicable at all. It is submitted
      that Section 24 of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable only in a case where
E     the acquisition under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have
      been initiated. Heavy reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in
      the case of Bangalore Development Authority & Anr. vs. The State
      of Karnataka & Ors. rendered in M.A. No.1614-1616 of 2019 in M.A.
      No.1346-1348 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.7661-7663 of 2018.
F            3.3 It is further submitted by Shri Mehta, learned Solicitor General
      appearing on behalf of the appellants that even otherwise the High Court
      has erred in holding that as the award was not declared and the possession
      was not taken over, Section 24 of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable.
             3.4 It is further submitted that the High Court has failed to
G     appreciate that the award could not be passed on account of stay order
      granted by the High Court. It is submitted that therefore non-passing of
      the award which was due to the stay granted by the High Court cannot
      be a ground to apply Section 24 of the Act, 2013.
            Making the above submissions it is prayed to allow the present
H
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORS.                                  367
    v. NISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

appeals.                                                                         A
       4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by learned Counsel
Sunil Fernandes appearing on behalf of the respondents herein – original
writ petitioners.
       4.1 It is submitted that in the present case, as neither the possession
of the lands in question have been taken over nor the compensation has           B
been paid as the award was not declared, no error has been committed
by the High Court in directing to pay the compensation under the Act,
2013.
       4.2 It is further submitted by the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the original writ petitioners that in the present case neither         C
Clause 2(13) of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of
Difficulties) Order, 2019 nor section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
shall be applicable.
        4.3 It is submitted that reliance placed by the appellants on the
decision of this Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority            D
& Anr. (Supra) is wholly misconceived, as the same shall not apply to
the facts of the instant case. It is submitted that in the said judgment it
was held that the repeal of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would not
affect / lapse the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Bangalore
Development Act, 1976, inasmuch as the provisions of the former Act              E
had been ‘incorporated’ into the latter Act and therefore, had independent
existence. It is submitted that in the said decision the view taken by this
Court was on the premise that since the governing statute, i.e., the
Bangalore Development Act, 1976 had not been repealed, there was no
occasion of applicability of the Act, 2013. It is submitted that in the
present case, J & K Act which was pari materia to the Land Acquisition           F
Act, 1894 stands repealed and Act, 2013 has come into force with respect
to the J & K with effect from 31.10.2019 on enactment of the Jammu &
Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019.
       4.4 It is further submitted that in view of the plain language implied
in Section 24 of the Act, 2013 i.e., if at the time of commencement of the       G
Act, 2013, no award has been made under the old Act, then all provisions
under the new Act (Act, 2013) relating to determination of compensation
shall apply. It is submitted that therefore the intention of the legislature
to ensure that the proceedings under the old Act did not lapse merely
due to the coming into force of the new Act. However, at the same time,
                                                                                 H
368             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     the intention is to give benefit of the liberal provisions of the Act, 2013 to
      the land owners as well. It is submitted that therefore the High Court
      has rightly held that in case an award has been made under the J&K
      Act before its repeal, then the right of compensation of the land owners
      would certainly have been determined in accordance with the J & K
      Act only. However, where no award has been passed under the J & K
B
      Act before its repeal and consequently no right to compensation had
      been matured, neither clause 2(13) of the Jammu and Kashmir
      Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019 nor Section 6 of
      the General Clauses Act shall be employed to nullify the express provision
      contained in Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 insofar as it provides that
C     where no award is passed under the old / repealed Act, the provisions of
      enhanced compensation under the Act, 2013 would apply while not
      affecting the land acquisition proceedings under the old / repealed law
      as such.
             4.5 Now, so far as non-passing of the award on account of the
D     stay order dated 14.12.2018 is concerned, it is submitted that as such the
      order dated 14.12.2018 was only directing the parties to maintain status
      quo with regard to the possession and the High Court did not pass any
      interim order restraining the authorities from declaring the award. It is
      submitted that even the order of status quo was in some of the writ
      petitions and did not extend to other lands. It is submitted that despite the
E     same, no award was passed.
             4.6 In the alternative it is submitted by the learned Counsel
      appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners that before the High
      Court the land acquisition proceedings were challenged on number of
      grounds and to pay the enhanced amount of compensation under Section
F     24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 was an alternative prayer due to non-declaration
      of the award under Section 11 of the State Act of 1990. It is submitted
      that in view of the alternative relief prayed for by the original writ
      petitioners, the High Court did not go into the merits of the submissions
      of the original writ petitioners with respect to quashing of the land
G     acquisition proceedings and therefore, to that extent the issue is yet to
      be considered. It is submitted that in case this Court takes the view that
      the provisions of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable and that the original
      land owners are not entitled to enhanced compensation under Section
      24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013, in that case, the matters may be remanded to

H
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORS.                               369
    v. NISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the High Court to decide the writ petitions on other grounds.                 A
       5. We have heard Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Sunil Fernandes, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents herein – original writ
petitioners.
       5.1 Having gone through the impugned common judgment and               B
order passed by the High Court, the High Court has directed the appellants
herein to determine and pay to the original owners the compensation
under the Act, 2013 on the ground that no award under the State Act of
1990 has been published and/or declared. While passing the impugned
common judgment and order, the High Court has relied upon Section             C
24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013. Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 reads as
under:
      “24. Land acquisition process under Act No.1 of 1894 shall
      be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.- (1)
      Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case             D
      of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
      Acquisition Act, 1894,-
      (a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land
      Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this
      Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply;          E
      or
      (b) where an award under said section 11 has been made,
      then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of
      the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been
      repealed.”                                                              F
       On fair reading of Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013, it provides
that notwithstanding anything contained in Act, 2013, in any case of land
acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
where no award under Section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has
been made, then, all provisions of Act, 2013 relating to the determination
                                                                              G
of the compensation shall apply. Section 24(1) of the Act, 2013 speaks
about the land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. In the present case, the lands in question have been acquired
under the provisions of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990. Therefore,
the acquisition of the lands in question is not under the Land Acquisition
                                                                              H
370             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     Act, 1894. It cannot be disputed that prior to the enactment of the Jammu
      & Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 and promulgation of the Jammu &
      Kashmir (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019, the Land Acquisition
      Act, 1894 was not applicable at all so as far as the State of Jammu &
      Kashmir is concerned. It is only on the enactment of the Jammu &
      Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, Act, 2013 shall be made applicable.
B
      It is the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that as the provisions
      of the State Act of 1990 are pari materia to the Land Acquisition Act,
      1894 and therefore, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall be applicable.
      The aforesaid cannot be accepted. The language of Section 24(1)(a) of
      the Act, 2013 is very clear and unambiguous. It talks about the land
C     acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 only
      and it does not speak about any other pari materia provision of different
      statutes.
              5.2 At this stage the decision of this Court in the case of Bangalore
      Development Authority & Anr. (Supra) is required to be referred to. In
D     the said decision it is specifically observed and held that the Act, 2013
      repeals only the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not any other Central or
      State enactment dealing with the acquisition and therefore, what is sought
      to be saved under the Act, 2013 is only acquisitions which have been
      initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and not those acquisitions
      which have been initiated under any other Central or State enactment.
E     In paragraphs 19 and 23, this Court had observed and held as under:
                    “19. The 2013 Act repeals only the LA Act and not any
             other Central or State enactment dealing with acquisition.
             Therefore, what is sought to be saved under Section 24 of the
             2013 Act is only acquisitions which had been initiated under
F            the LA Act and 13 not those acquisitions which had been
             initiated under any other Central or State enactment. The
             expression contained in Section 24 of the LA Act cannot be
             given extensive interpretation by adding words into the
             provision, in the absence of the provision itself giving rise to
G            any such implication. We are of the view that 2013 Act would
             not regulate the acquisition proceedings made under the BDA
             Act.
                   23. In view of the above, the Learned Judge of the High
             Court in Sri Sudhakar Hegde (supra) was not justified in
H            holding that the provisions of LA Act that are made applicable
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORS.                                 371
    v. NISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      to the BDA Act are in the nature of legislation by reference.             A
      The learned Judge has also erred in holding that in view of
      the repeal of LA Act by coming into force of 2013 Act, the
      corresponding provisions of 2013 Act would regulate
      acquisition proceedings under the BDA Act and that this would
      include determination of compensation in accordance with
                                                                                B
      2013 Act. It is hereby clarified that since LA Act has been
      incorporated into the BDA Act so far as they are applicable,
      the provisions of 15 2013 Act are not applicable for the
      acquisitions made under the BDA Act. Therefore, the judgment
      of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Sri Sudhakar
      Hegde (supra) and other connected matters is hereby                       C
      overruled.”
       In view of the above binding decision of this Court, we are of the
firm view that the provisions of the Act, 2013 shall not be applicable with
respect to the acquisition under the J & K Act, 1990.
        5.3 Even otherwise considering clause 2(13) of the Order, 2019          D
read with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act under which the rights,
liabilities, privileges, obligations acquired, accrued, or incurred under the
repealed laws stands saved and would be continued under those Acts
(in the present case the Act, 1990), it is to be noted that Order, 2019 is
subsequent to the Act, 2013. Therefore, it is to be presumed that while         E
enacting the Order, 2019 and providing Clause 2(13) of the Order, 2019,
the legislature was conscious of the provisions of the earlier Act (Act,
2013). Under the circumstances also, with respect to the lands acquired
under the State Act of 1990, Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall not
be applicable at all.
                                                                                F
        5.4 Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in some of the
writ petitions there was an order of status quo may be with respect to
the possession. It is to be noted that the notification under Section 4 and
declaration under Section 6 of the State Act of 1990 was a common
notification / declaration. Therefore, there was impediment on the part
of the authority in declaring the award. The original writ petitioners cannot   G
be permitted to take benefit of the order of status quo obtained by some
of the original writ petitioners and thereafter to contend that as the award
has not been declared they shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of
compensation under the provisions of the Act, 2013. In the case of Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors.; (2020) 8 SCC                     H
372                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A     129, it is observed and held by this Court that: -
            (i)       Lapse of acquisition takes place only in case of default
                      by the authorities acquiring the land, not caused by any
                      other reason or order of the court;
            (ii)      If it was not possible for the acquiring authorities, for any
B                     reason not attributable to them or the Government, to take
                      requisite steps, the period has to be excluded;
            (iii)     In case the authorities are prevented by the court’s order,
                      obviously, as per the interpretation of the provisions such
                      period has to be excluded;
C
            (iv)      The intent of the Act, 2013 is not to benefit landowners
                      only. The provisions of Section 24 by itself do not intend
                      to confer benefits on litigating parties as such, while as
                      per Section 114 of the Act, 2013 and Section 6 of the
                      General Clauses Act the case has to be litigated as per
D                     the provisions of the Act, 1894;
            (v)       It is not the intendment of the Act, 2013 that those who
                      have assailed the acquisition process should get benefits
                      of higher compensation as contemplated under Section
                      24;
E
            (vi)      It is not intended by the provisions that in case, the persons,
                      who have litigated and have obtained interim orders from
                      the Civil Courts by filing suits or from the High Court
                      under Article 226 of the Constitution should have the
                      benefits of the provisions of the Act, 2013 except to the
F                     extent specifically provided under the Act, 2013;
            (vii)     In cases where some landowners have chosen to take
                      recourse to litigation and have obtained interim orders
                      restraining taking of possession or orders of status quo,
                      as a matter of practical reality it is not possible for the
G                     authorities or the Government to take possession or to
                      make payment of compensation to the landowners. In
                      several instances, such interim orders also have impeded
                      the making of an award;
            (viii)    The litigation initiated by the landowners has to be decided
H
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORS.                             373
    v. NISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

            on its own merits and the benefits of Section 24(2) should      A
            not be available to the litigants in a straightjacket manner.
            In case there is no interim order, they can get the benefits
            they are entitled to, not otherwise. Delays and dilatory
            tactics and sometimes wholly frivolous pleas cannot result
            in benefitting the landowners under sub-section (1) of
                                                                            B
            Section 24 of the Act, 2013;
   (ix)     Any type of order passed by this Court would inhibit action
            on the part of the authorities to proceed further, when a
            challenge to acquisition is pending;
   (x)      Interim order of stay granted in one of the matters of the      C
            landowners would cause a complete restraint on the
            authorities to proceed further to issue declaration;
   (xi)     When the authorities are disabled from performing duties
            due to impossibility, it would be a sufficient excuse for
            them to save them from rigour of provisions of Section          D
            24. A litigant may have a good or a bad cause, be right or
            wrong. But he cannot be permitted to take advantage of
            a situation created by him by way of an interim order
            passed in his favour by the Court at his instance. Although
            provision of Section 24 does not discriminate between
            landowners, who are litigants or non-litigants and treat        E
            them differently with respect to the same acquisition, it is
            necessary to view all of them from the stand point of the
            intention of the Parliament. Otherwise, anomalous results
            may occur and provisions may become discriminatory in
            itself;                                                         F
   (xii)    The law does not expect the performance of the
            impossible;
   (xiii)   An act of the court shall prejudice no man;
   (xiv)    When there is a disability to perform a part of the law,
                                                                            G
            such a charge has to be excused. When performance of
            the formalities prescribed by a statute is rendered
            impossible by circumstances over which the persons
            concerned have no control, it has to be taken as a valid
            excuse;
   (xv)     The Court can under its inherent jurisdiction ex debito         H
374             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 17 S.C.R.


A                     justitiae has a duty to mitigate the damage suffered by
                      the defendants by the act of the Court;
            (xvi)     No person can suffer from the act of Court and an unfair
                      advantage of the interim order must be neutralised;
            (xvii)    No party can be permitted to take shelter under the cover
B                     of Court’s order to put the other party in a disadvantageous
                      position;
            (xviii)   If one has enjoyed under the Court’s cover, that period
                      cannot be included towards inaction of the authorities to
                      take requisite steps under Section 24 as the State
C                     authorities would have acted and passed an award
                      determining compensation but for the Court’s order.
            Therefore also, the original writ petitioners – land owners shall
      not be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation under Section
      24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 on the ground that as the award has not been
D     declared they shall be entitled to compensation under the Act, 2013.
             6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and our
      specific finding that with respect to the lands acquired under the provisions
      of the J & K Act, 1990 Section 24(1)(a) of the Act, 2013 shall not be
      applicable and even otherwise as observed hereinabove on merits also
E     as the award could not be declared due to the pendency of the writ
      petitions before the High Court and the order of status quo, the High
      Court has committed a serious error in directing the appellants to pay
      the amount of compensation under the Act, 2013. To that extent the
      impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court is
F     unsustainable, both on facts as well as on law.
            6.1 However, at the same time, as it is reported that the acquisition
      proceedings were challenged on other grounds also and the prayer to
      pay the compensation under the Act, 2013 was an alternative prayer,
      which has been granted by the High Court and therefore, the High Court
      did not go into the merits of the submissions made on behalf of the
G
      original land owners with respect to the quashing of the land acquisition
      proceedings on other grounds, the matters are to be remanded to the
      High Court to decide the writ petitions afresh in accordance with law
      and on its own merits on the other grounds if any, challenging the land
      acquisition proceedings under the State Act of 1990.
H
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. (BPCL) & ORS.                                  375
    v. NISAR AHMED GANAI & ORS. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these       A
appeals succeed. The impugned common judgment and order dated
06.10.2021 passed by the High Court allowing the writ petitions and
directing the appellants to pay to the original writ petitioners / original
land owners the compensation as per the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed
and set aside. As the High Court has not decided the writ petitions on
                                                                                 B
merits on other grounds with respect to quashing of the land acquisition
proceedings, all the writ petitions are remitted back to the High Court to
decide and dispose of the said writ petitions afresh in accordance with
law and on its own merits so far as other grounds with respect to the
quashing of the land acquisition proceedings, which shall be dealt with
by the High Court in accordance with law and on its own merits.                  C
However, the issue with respect to the applicability of the Act, 2013 is
concluded and shall not be reopened by the High Court and it is observed
and clarified that the High Court shall consider on merits other submissions,
if any raised in the writ petitions, with respect to quashing of the land
acquisition proceedings only.
                                                                                 D
       Present appeals are allowed accordingly to the aforesaid extent.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.

Ankit Gyan and Anurag Bhaskar                                 Appeals allowed.   E
(Assisted by : Ajay, LCRA)




                                                                                 F




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H