DECLARATION

This is certified that the matter embodied in the present work entitled “Law Relating
to Land Acquisition in India: Emerging trends and issues” is based on my original
research work. It has not been submitted in part or fully for any diploma or degree of
any other university.

My indebtedness to others in this work has been duly acknowledged at relevant

places.

Naveen Kumar
(Signature of the Candidate)

Countersigned by

Prof. (Dr.)A.S. Dalal

Head and Dean
Faculty of Law
M.D. University, Rohtak

i
 Acknowledgements
I take this opportunity to express my immense gratitude and appreciation to
all who have been responsible for the completion of this work.
I express my deep sense of gratitude and indebtedness to my chief supervisor
Prof. (Dr.) Preet Singh for his constant encouragement, invaluable guidance and
critical evaluation of the study. His vast knowledge in law, meticulous thinking and
scholarly expertise helped me all along my thesis work. He has provided me with
direction, support and facilities for my work. I take this opportunity to thank him for
giving me infinite amount of freedom, for lending clarity to my ideas and for his
phenomenal tolerance towards my shortcomings. He always placed his full faith and
trusts in me that enabled me to believe in my research goals and has instilled self-
confidence and determination to achieve them. His affection and hearty co-operation
throughout this study has laid the foundation for a personal camaraderie beyond the
teacher-student relationship that I will cherish forever. The words never express my
deepest respects and profound gratitude towards him.
It is a matter of inordinate "amour propre" and declaration for me to express my
deep sense of devoutly gratitude to Prof. (Dr.) A.S. Dalal, Head and Dean,
Department of Law, M.D. University, Rohtak for his adroit teachings, unceasing
stimulus and above all his firm confidence in me.
I would also like to thank the entire faculty in the Department of Law, MDU
for their help and encouragement.
It’s my pleasure to mention my friends provided me the greatest strength and
joy. I am highly indebted to all of them for helping me get through the difficult times,
for all the support, camaraderie, entertainment and standing by me at every moment.
I am grateful to my family has been my constant source of encouragement,
inspiration and strength to pursue this journey. I have relied throughout this time on
the support for bearance, understanding and love of my family., constant support and
motivation have made this work possible.
Above all I would like to thank God Almighty whom I have great faith in and
by whose blessings I have been able to reach this milestone.

(Naveen Kumar)

ii
 Preface

Seventy long years have passed to the independence; However Indian economy is still
in its transition phase. Lots of changes have been taking place in its policy framework
with respect to different sectors of economy. But, the land remains a fundamental
need for all economic, political and social activities. The recent people's agitation
against the acquisition of land across the nation has initiated a great debate. Besides
the common man being at the helm of debate, the Central Government, respective
State Governments, Political parties and civil societies all are actively participating in
this debate. The discourse arose due to this phase of massive modernization,
industrialization; transforming an essentially agrarian economy into an industrial
power and concerns mainly with location of industries, compensation and
employment of the displaced person. The very relationship between agriculture and
industrialization is being questioned. Nevertheless, it is quite strange to note that
neither the Government nor any of the political parties were serious enough to discuss
the worth of colonial legislation i.e. “Land Acquisition Act, 1894”. As “The Land
Acquisition Act, 1894” remained only the important legal instrument till the
implementation of “Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013” for acquiring land even for
private companies in India even after more than 68 years of independence.

The focus of this research work is to study the law relating to land acquisition in
India: Emerging Trend and Issues. As the Land ownership in India has always been a
risky proposition. The “Land Acquisition Act, 1894” endowed the State with
unfettered powers of acquisition. Furthermore, the refusal of Parliament to recognize
the right to own property as a fundamental one had emboldened the State to stake
claim on any land it saw fit.

However, in the year 2013 Govt. of India embarked on an ambitious exercise to

rewrite the entire law on land acquisition from scratch. This process saw a radical
polarization of public opinion- those who saw acquisition as a necessary tool for

iii
India’s development and those who were strongly opposed to an archaic relic that
defied the rule of law.

Hence, in the present researcher work a detailed study has been undertaken about the
law relating to land acquisition in India with emerging trends and issues. A detailed
study has been done to identify the grey areas in the law relating to land acquisition
and explore the emerging trends and issues and to make a comparative analysis of the
“Land Acquisition Act, 1894” with that of the “Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” and to
suggest certain solutions to address the issues involved in “Land Acquisition”.

An attempt has also been made to investigate the constitutional dimensions of issues
related with the Land Acquisition. The research work also explores the mechanism
and process of Land Acquisition, compensation and resettlement and rehabilitation of
affected people. Issue of “Public Purpose” and “Social Impact” has been explored in
details in the research work. Keeping in view that the “Land Acquisition Act, 1894”
could not meet the expectations of a welfare state for “Land Acquisition” process and
assuming that “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” shall prove a better
Legislation. The researcher aims to explores the dimensions of compensation,
resettlement, rehabilitation, rights of internally displaced people, Gram Panchyat or
Local Governing bodies in “Land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement of
affected persons” due to land acquisition process.

iv
 Contents in Brief

 Declaration i
 Certificate ii
 Acknowledgements iii
 Preface iv-v
 Contents in brief vi-ix
 List of Cases x-xv
 List of abbreviations xvi

SR. CHAPTERS PAGE

NO. NO.

1 Introduction 1-20
1.1 Introduction 1-14

1.2 The Research Problems 14-15

1.3 Objectives of the Study 16

1.4 Hypothesis 16

1.5 Literature Review 17

1.6 Research Methodology 17

1.7 Scheme of the Study 18-20

2 Historical Development of Land Acquisition Laws 21-81

in India
2.1 Introduction 21-24

2.2 Land Laws during the Hindu Period 24-28

2.3 The Muslim Period 28-32

2.4 Medieval Time 32-33

v
2.5 The British Period 33-37

2.6 Historical Development of Land Legislations 37-42

2.7 Beginning of Legislative Authority of the East India 42-48

Company

2.8 The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 48-51

2.9 A Comparative Study of 1894 Act and 2013 Act 51-81

3 Right to Property under the Constitution of India 82-113

: An Analysis
3.1 Introduction 82-87

3.2 Right of Property under the Indian Constitution 87-89

3.3 Analysis of Constitutional Provisions 89-91

3.4 Constitutional Provisions and Problems of Interpretations 91-95

3.5 Major Amendments relates to Land Acquisition 95-104

3.6 Ninth Schedule and Land Reform Legislations 104

3.7 Acquisition of Land: Judicial Trends and their Impact 104-113

4 Land Acquisition Act, 2013: Issues and 114-211

Perspective
4.1 Introduction 114

4.2 The objectives of the Act are set out in its long title as under 114-116

4.3 Territorial extent of the LARR Act, 2013 116

4.4 Effective date for Enforcement of LARR Act, 2013 116

4.5 Retrospective Applicability of LARR Act, 2013 to 117

Proceedings initiated under the 1894 Act

4.6 Provisions for Land Acquisition under Special Acts 117-119

4.7 Analysis of new Provisions of 2013 Act 119-122

4.8 Analysis of Important Definitions given in 2013 Act 122-131

vi
4.9 Application of 2013 Act 131-133

4.10 Acquisition for Public Purpose 133-140

4.11 Safeguards given under the new Act against Indiscriminate 140-143
Land Acquisition

4.12 Mandatory Consultation and Social Impact Assessment 143-145

4.13 Publication of Notice 145-148

4.14 Publication of Social Impact Assessment Study Report 148-156

4.15 Right of Person Interested in any Land covered under 156-157

Preliminary Notification

4.16 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme 157-169

4.17 Special Powers in Case of Urgency 169-172

4.18 Compensation Provisions of the Act 172-181

4.19 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Awards for Affected 181-194

Families

4.20 LARR Authorities 194-204

4.21 Temporary Occupation of Land 204-205

4.22 Income Tax Exemption 205-206

4.23 Award 206-210

4.24 Service of Notice 210-211

5 Challenges in Land Acquisition under the New 212-243

Act
5.1 Introduction 212

5.2 Preliminary Notification 212-218

5.3 Declaration for Acquisition and Summary of Rehabilitation 218-219

and Resettlement Report

5.4 Award 219-224

5.5 Officers tasked with Rehabilitation and Resettlement 224-227

vii
5.6 Miscellaneous Clause 227-234

5.7 Prevention of Post-Acquisition Misuse of Land 234-240

5.8 Non Applicability of 2013 Act 240-243

6 Compensation under Land Acquisition Act: A 244-271

Critical Analysis
6.1 Introduction 244-245

6.2 Arriving at a ‘Fair Compensation’ 245-252

6.3 Use of Multiplier for Compensation 252-255

6.4 Who Would be Compensated? 255-256

6.5 Rehabilitation and Settlement 256-265

6.6 Retrospective Operation of the Act for Compensation 265-271

7 Conclusion and Suggestions 272-285

7.1 Introduction 272-273

7.2 Critical Appraisal of the Present Land Acquisition Laws 273-281

7.3 Suggestions 281-285

Bibliography 286-296

viii
 LIST OF CASES
Abdul Sattar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1994 All 77.

Abha Pramanick v. State of West Bengal, 1979 Kar. L.J.374.

Adusumalli Parvathi and others v. The Special Tahsildar, (1994) 3 ALT 114 A.P.

Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 7281.

Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 (4) SCC 67.

Ali Hassan v. Lt. Governor, ILR (1976)1 Delhi 485

Amar Singh Jadar v. Shanti Devi, AIR 1987 Pat 191(FB).

Anil Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner, AIR 1960 SC 123

Ashok Kumar Kesharwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 866; AIR 1984
AII 283 (FB).

B.D. Sharma v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 93.

Bhagwat Dayal v. Union of India, AIR, 1959 Punj 479.

Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1650.

Bhyrava Murthy v. M. Venkataraju, 2001 (5) ALT 565 (L.B.).

Barkya Thakur v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 1230.

Berman v. Parker Hawaii Housing Authority, 467 US 229; 545 US 469.

Basantibai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1986 SCR(1) 707.

B.K. Abul Azeez v. State of Mysore, AIR 1997 Mys 12; ILR (1956) Mys 146.

B.S. Tolani v. Union of India, (1987)7 Reports (Dell 55).

Chandramani Sahu v. State of Orissa, AIR 1991 Ori. 205.

Chemicli Singh v. Slate of U.P, (1996) 2 SCC 549.

Chicago Railway v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226(1897).

Coffee Board v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, (1988) 3 SCC 263.

Collector of Customs v. Nathella Sampathu Chetty, AIR 1962 SC 316.

Daulat Singh Surana v. First Land Acquisition Officer, 2007 I SCC 41.

ix
Dev Sharan & Others. v. State of U.P, SLP(C) No. 10993 of 2010.

D.G. Mahajan v. Maharashtra, 1977 AIR 915; 1977 SCR (2) 790.

Dwarkadas Srinivas v. Sholapur Spinning & Weaving co. Ltd, AIR 1954 SC 119;
1954 SCR 674.

Food Corporation of India v. Makhan Singh, 1992 SCR (2) 615.

Francis Coralie v. Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.

Gaundalal v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1963 Guj. 50.

General Government Servants Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Agra v. Shah

Wahab Uddin, 1981 2 SCC 353.

Gilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596; AIR
1995 SC 142.

Gujarat v. Shantilal, AIR 1969 SC 634; (1969)1 SC 509.

Indrajit C. Parekh v. State of Gujarat, (1974)1 SCC 324.

I. R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2007 (2) SCR 980; 2007(10) SCC 448,
2007(3) SCC 349.

Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (1971) 1 SCC 671.

Jai Narain v. Land Acquisition Officer N.I.T. Nagpur, AIR 2006 NOC 1086.

Jamandas Devashibhai Bhate v. Commissioner, Nagpur, AIR 1976 Bom 129.

Jethmal Bhojraj Messrs v. State of Bihar, AIR 1999 BOM 71.

Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 142.

Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1953 Pat 167; 1953 (1) BLJR 261.

Kannan Devan Hills produce Co. Ltd., v. State of Kerala, AIR 1972 SC 2240.

Karimbil Kunhikonam v. Kerala, AIR 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 829.

Karnataka State Financial Corporation v. N. Narasimhaiah, 2003 (5) Kar. LJ 164

Kavalappara Kottaraothil Kochunini v. State of Madras, (1955) 1 S.C.R. 250.

x
Kerala v. Gwalior Rayon & Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd, AIR 1990 SC 1747; 1990 SCR (2)
401.

Keshav Pal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1985 Pat. 70.

Keshwananda Bharati v. Kerala, AIR 1970 SC 564; (1970) 1 SCC 248.

Kunjakutti v. State of Kerala, AIR 1999 SC 2281.

K.V.M. Samity Mujjaffarnagar v. Ratan Prakash, AIR 1988 SC 1459; (1988) 3

SCC 225.

Lachchman Dass v. Jagatram, AIR 2007 SC 2458; (2007) 8 SCC 705.

Laxmanappa Hanumantappa v. Union of India, AIR 1955 SC 3.

Laxman Rao Bapurao Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 3 SCC 493

Madras v. D. Namasivaya Mudaliar, AIR 1954 SC 170; 1954 SCR 558.

Madras Vs. P.Sccthararamatha, AIR 1972 Mad 170.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.

Manubhai Jehtalal Pateland other v. State of Gujarat and others, (1983) 4 SCC
553.

Mathew v. Collector, Phulbani, AIR 1975 Ori. 4.

Mema Ram v. State of Haryana, 1987 SCJ 479; (1986) 480C SCC 151; AIR 1987
SC 45.

Minerva Mills Ltd. v Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789; 1980 3 SCC 625.

Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kasab Jamat v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1998 Guj 220.

M.M Pathak v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCC 50; AIR 1978 SC 803.

Motibhai Vithalbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1961 Guj 93.

Mudumekala Hanumanna v. District Collector, Ananthpur, W.P. No. 9452 of

1989 decided on 08.4.1993.

Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664.

N.D. Jayal v. Union of India, 2003 Supp (3) SCR 152.

Nthumul Rajmal Baldata v. Special Land Acquisition officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652.

xi
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180.

Pandit Jandu Lai v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 343.

Patel Gandalal Somnath v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1963 Guj. 50.

People ex rel. Adamowski v. Chicago R.R. Terminal Authority, 151 N.E. 2d 311.

P. Iyar Nadar v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 Mad. 50.

Pratibha Nema v. State of M.P., AIR 2003 SC 3140; (2003) 10 SCC 626.

P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, (2007) 6 SCC 59.

P. Vajravelu v. Spl. Dy. Collector, AIR 1961 SC 954.

Radericks v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 1788.

Radhey Shyam v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1989 SC 682; JT 1989 (1) SC
58.

Raghunathan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1988 SC 1615; (1981)3 SCC 294.

Raja Anand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1967) 1 SCR 373.

Raj Rajendrahalaji Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1953 MP 97 (FB).

R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564.

R. Hanumanthappa v. Sons and State, AIR 1988 Kar.329.

R L Aurora v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1958 AII 872.

Ramchandra Maroti v. Collector, AIR 1975 Bom. 281.

Ram Kumar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1963 Cal. 534; 67 CAL. W.N. 387

Ramjibhai Harkhabhai v. Section and extra Special LAO, 1992(1) Guj LR 105.

Rastriya Mill Mazdoor Singh v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1996 SC 2791; Cr LJ

4151; 1996 AIR SCW 3555.

Ratilal Shankarabai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1970 SC

Saghir Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 119; 1954 SCR 674.

Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, AIR 1981 SC 234; (1981)1
SCC 166.

xii
Seindia employ’s Union v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1996) 10 SCC 150.

Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar, (2003) 1 SCC 85.

Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1925 Bom. 290.

Shyam Behari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1962 MP 80.

Smt. Somwanti v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 151.

S.M. Transport (P) Ltd., v. Shankar Swamigal Mutt, AIR 1963 SC 664.

Jalan Trading Co. Ltd. v. Mill Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1967 SC 691.

Srinivasa Co-operative House Building Society Limited v. Madam Gurumurthy

Sastry and others, (1994)4 SCC 676.

State of Bombay v. Ali Gulshan, AIR 1955 SC 810.

State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji AIR 1955 SC 41.

State of Bombay v. R. S. Nanji, AIR 1956 SC 294; 1956 SCR 18

State of Gujarat v. Shsntilal Mangaldar, AIR 1969 SC 634; (1969)1 SCC 509;
(1969)1 SCR 4 5938.

State of Gujarat v. Panch of Nani Hamam’s pole, AIR 1986 SC 803.

State of Maharastra v. H N Rao, AIR 1970 SC 1157.

State of Mysore v. K.C. Adiga, AIR 1976 SC 853; (1976) 2 SCC 495.

State of Karnataka v. Shri Ranganatha Reddy, (1977)4 SCC 471.

State of Kerala v. Mother Provincial, AIR 1970 SC 2079.

State of Punjab v. Raja Ram, (1981)2 SCC 66.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brijendra Singh, 1981 SCC (1) 597; 1981 SCR (2) 287.

State of U.P. v. Venkateswar Singh, 1974 ALJ 822.

State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee, AIR 1954 SC 170; 1954 SCR 587.

State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, AIR 1954 SC 92; 1954 SCR 587.

xiii
Union of India v. Metal Corporation, AIR 1965 SC 1017.

United Community Services v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 77N.W. 2d 576, 585, 162 Neb.
786.

U. S. v. Jones, 1883 27 LED 1015.

Vajravelu v. Special Deputy Collector, AIR 1960 SC 1080.

Vajravelumadaliar v. Dy. Collector, AIR 1965 SC 1017; (1905) I SCR 614.

Venkata Chalpati v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1986 Mad 309.

Venkatamma v. City Improvement of Trust Board, Mysore, (1973)1 SCC 188; AIR
1972 SC 2683.

Vijay Singh Liladhar v. Special Land Acquisition officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652.

Valjibhai Mujibhai Soneji v. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 1890.

Vishweswar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1952) SCR 1020.

Waman Roa v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 271; (1981) 2 SCC 362.

Wazir Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 415.

xiv
 List of Abbreviations

Add. : Additional
AIR : All India Reporter
All : Allahabd
Art : Article
Cl : Clause
CRHSP : Comprehensive Rural Health Services Project
DOLR : Department of Land Resource
EMA : Environment Impact Assessment
Govt. : Government
ILR : Indian Law Reports
LARR : Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
NAC : National Advisory Council
NC : National Commission
NDA : National Democratic Alliance
P.A. : per annum
PPP : Public Private Partnership
R&R Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Sec. : Section
SIA : Social Impact Assessment
SC : Supreme Court
SCC : Supreme Court Cases
SCJ : Supreme Court Journal
UPA : United Progressive Alliance
UP : Uttar Pradesh
V. : Versus

xv